By the way, who wouldn't have loved it if Kira had slapped Keiko down to the floor for being so arrogant that she thought she could talk to Kira like she was a disagreeable piece of fungus or something? Seriously, these atheists don't do anything to support their cases when they come off as being such pompous idiots.
By the way, I have a massive crush on Kira, and I will be mentioning her in my book celebrating the supremacy of religion, and critiquing the wrongdoings of the atheist troublemakers in the world.
@trekfreek - I didn't cut out the bits I didn't like. I cut out the bits of the episode that didn't relate to this storyline or to the point they were trying to make (imho). That's an important distinction which I think you've missed. I do agree with you tho - "everyone's beliefs are equally valid" is relativism which is bollocks. I doubt that any atheists want to "destroy" any sort of school - we'd just rather religion wasn't taught to children as factual
@vIQleS If religion shouldn't be taught as being fact at schools, then why should science be taught as fact at schools? Your wishes to force children to believe that science "is fact" and religion "false" is no better than the brainwashing programs Hitler and his Nazis forced children to endure back in the 30s-40s. Let the kids make up their own minds, and stop trying to force negativity on them.
@STEJTHEGREATEST Alright then, science should be taught because it's fact and based on reality. Religion shouldn't because it's based on opinion and blind faith.
@AndrewBCNZ Your response would be better if it wasn't wrong. The flimsy evidence science has supporting it is available only to the scientific elites who CLAIM IT EXISTS, and your belief in evidence you've never seen makes you irrational, especially since it can't communicate to you like God can. Science will always be inferior to religion because it only attempts to explain what it can predict, whereas religion explains the most complicated questions known to mankind. Religion 1, science 0.
@STEJTHEGREATEST The whole point of science is that it is just a matter of examining evidence which is available to everybody. The "scientific elites" are just those who have taken the time to study this evidence in detail and search for more evidence or clues about the planet. Religion claims to answer great complicated questions but it does this by just declaring something to be fact for no reason other than that it wants SOMETHING, and expecting it to be believed. Religion: 0, I'm afraid.
@AndrewBCNZ Science is okay if you're only wanting knowledge about things that can be predicted, and works wonders under the veil of simplicity that is laboratory testing, but operating under the belief that everything in the universe and beyond can be predicted is just plain naive. Seeing as how science explains things by successfully predicting what will happen, that means it will never be able to explain the unpredictable things.
@STEJTHEGREATEST You're right that science attempts to learn what can be learnt. Things which are unknowable are just that, I'm not sure exactly what constitutes unknowable but I'd hope that even if you believe that some things are that doesn't stop you from trying to learn what you can learn.
And what exactly is the alternative to science? As far as I can see, you seem to be advocating just making answers up which hardly seems worthwhile
@AndrewBCNZ Just because something can't be predicted, that doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything about it. It's possible to learn a great deal through logical interpretation of the actions of unpredictable entities, and religious people specialise in their logical analyses. Religious people can explain more tan scientists can because scientists are locked into a certain mindset which involves them needing to predict things. Religious people are generally less rigid.
@STEJTHEGREATEST I'm not quite sure where you've got this idea that science is all about predicting things. In most cases the only predictions involved are as part of experiments to test a hypothesis.
Science is just a matter of examining the world around us and learning more about it, how it came to be like that and sometimes predicting what it will do in the future.
The only way in which the religious alternative is "less rigid" is that it isn't limited by facts or the real world in general.
@AndrewBCNZ You make it sound as if the need for prediction is only a small facet of science, but seeing as how experimentation and prediction are science's means of proving things, that means that any aspect of science that doesn't delve into prediction of events falls into the category of guesswork rather than factuality, and seeing as how religion's greatest thinkers have had far more time to analyse religious texts than scientists, I trust their explanations of the unpredictable more.
@STEJTHEGREATEST I'm now wondering what you mean by the "unpredictable," could you please give me an example? I'm also left wondering why you think that having time to read over religious texts will reveal answers. How do you know which religious texts to analyse? How do you know ANY religious texts have the answers? How can you be sure they aren't all just old myths and fairy tales with a few often out-dated moral lessons but no value beyond that to understanding the universe?
@AndrewBCNZ Well starters, the ominpotent being that is God is unpredictable. How can you make predictions regarding a being that is infinitely superior to you? Being able to consistently predict the behaviour of another would make you SUPERIOR TO THEM, in a sense, and that's why it will never happen. Also, humanity will never be in the position to create a universe of the same magnitude as this one, which is why we scientists will never be able to make predictions about this universe, either.
@STEJTHEGREATEST But how do you even know that there IS an omnipotent being? That requires faith, i.e. is not based on evidence and therefore shouldn't be taught to impressionable minds in schools which should be left to decide on the subject for themselves (children have a predisposition to believe in a god of some kind anyway because they've evolved to accept authority without question). We don't need to create another universe to examine the one we're in and science is the only way to do that
@AndrewBCNZ The fact that the idea of religion, and religious texts have endured for so long, and proven so useful to humanity adds credence to the idea of God existing.
Because science can never hope to fully explain our universe, you will never be able to say the scientific explanation of how the universe came to be is factual, and therefore ruling out the religious explanation is depriving children of information, which could be considered child abuse.
@STEJTHEGREATEST Religion satisfies a part of the human mind that wants answers. When scientific explanations weren't available it was possible for cultures to make stuff up and call it fact, i.e. religion.
Science doesn't need to fully explain EVERYTHING in the universe to be considered factual, that's just absurd.
The "religious explanation" is pure fiction made up in the absence of science and to teach it to children as fact is essentially misleading them and COULD be considered child abuse.
@AndrewBCNZ Then why is it that when children are given the choice of scientific explanations and religious explanations, they generally go with religion? That's not child abuse, that's just letting them have freedom in what they want to believe. There you go with your "inner-Hitler" again, which all you atheists seem to have, with how you try to force your negative, limiting beliefs on everyone. You atheists are a direct threat to humanity's intellectual freedom, and I intend to stop you all.
@STEJTHEGREATEST Children have a known pre-disposition to believe in a deity as it is an evolutionary advantage for them to be able to accept authority (e.g. their parents') without question. That has nothing to do with the truth of either argument. I'm just trying to think of all those cases of atheists killing believers for holding different world-views. I'm sure they must exist, after all, we have an "inner-Hitler" and are a threat to intellectual freedom. Nope. I'm not having any luck. Sorry
@AndrewBCNZ When looking for atheist butchers, you don't have to look any further than Einstein. His nukes killed millions, and have threatened the existence of all life since they were even conceived.
If it's an evolutionary advantage for children to accept authority, then why do they rebel so much? Why do they go through a notorious period of growth known as the "terrible twos" where they're almost impossible to control? Why is it that school teachers had to physically beat children before?
@STEJTHEGREATEST It's not a matter of atheists who were responsible for deaths, Besides, I said "for holding difference world-views." I.e. killing people BECAUSE they were atheists and their victims were not. No examples exist, as far as I know.
It's an advantage for children to accept authority in general, which is why children believe their parents stories about Santa etc.. I'll give you points for creativity though, I've never heard the terrible twos being used as proof of God before.
@AndrewBCNZ Thanks! Given the fact that atheists are generally in favour of drug use, and the callous act of murder that is abortion, I don't think it'll be long before drunk atheists lose what little self-control they have and decide to shoot people just for being theists.
With you saying children accept God because it's an advantage for them to seek authority, are you saying that atheists who reject God, are AGAINST authority, and therefore more likely to embrace anarchy and lawlessness?
@STEJTHEGREATEST I'm just wondering where "in favour of drug use" comes from... Oh well, I won't get into abortion here except to say that it obviously shouldn't be used recklessly. Well, NOW I'm sure you're trolling. Good. If not you clearly haven't really talked to atheists or thought about what I just said OR about the whole idea of an evolutionary advantage.
@AndrewBCNZ Lots of atheists that I've come across in the past are in favour of legalising all recreational drugs, and it just so happens that legalising recreational drugs will be the beginning of the end of humanity. It'll drag humanity down lower than it's ever been before. Atheists are very detrimental to humanity in other ways, too.
If a person doesn't want to submit to any authority in life, then the only alternative is anarchy. You can't sit on the fence here, it's one or the other.
@STEJTHEGREATEST There are some good arguments to be made in favour of the legalisation of some recreational drugs. I don't say that because I think people should use them but for purely economic reasons which I won't get into. I seriously doubt that it would be the "beginning of the end of humanity."
As you grow beyond childhood, the human brain develops to not accept authority blindly. We still accept it, but only after questioning it. Children don't bother with that and therefore accept God.
@AndrewBCNZ Legalising recreational drugs would encourage people to hide away from their problems in life, and let them think that when the going gets tough, there's always drugs to help them drown out the reality and get high. That would result in generations of weak-willed people who crumble at the first sign of adversity. It would be a massive step back for society.
Children don't accept authority blindly. They rebel often, like I've already said. Therefore their belief in God is logical.
@STEJTHEGREATEST The point I was making about children was that they're decision to accept authority is not based on logical evaluation, but on short-termed mood-swings. Children ARE predisposed (this isn't opinion, it's established fact) to follow authority, despite occasionally throwing a tantrum and "rebelling."
The fact of the matter is that people ARE able to access recreational drugs, legalized or not. Legalising them would just weaken the gangs and allow them to be regulated and taxed.
@AndrewBCNZ How is it an "established fact" that children are predisposed to follow authority? Anyone who was genetically designed designed to follow authority would do it ALL THE TIME without question. Dogs for instance, are bred to be subservient to their owners, and they ALWAYS ARE. Anytime an owner is mad at a dog, the dog will behave submissively.
If drugs become widely acceptable, then no one will think any less of people who do them, which would lead to even politicians doing them.
@STEJTHEGREATEST The key there is "predisposed". That DOESN'T mean EVERY time, it means that they are more likely than otherwise, and as I've said, the significant point is that they don't decide whether to follow based on their understanding of the reasoning but on their mood.
Legalising drugs wouldn't result in them becoming widely acceptable, they'd be regulated and taxed. Even so, I'm not proposing legalising hard drugs, just reviewing drug laws as prohibition has been shown not to work.
@AndrewBCNZ If children don't get the urge to follow authority occasionally, but most of the time they do, then why is bullying such a common, worldwide problem, and why does it happen consistently for years on end?????/!!!!!! According to your logic, incidents of bullying should only happen once in a blue moon, seeing as how children supposedly feel the need to follow authority MOST of the time!
What makes you so sure hard drugs wouldn't become acceptable? Even school kids can get cigarettes
@STEJTHEGREATEST Jesus, you're really struggling with this whole concept, I've explained this before and can't be bothered doing it again. Suffice to say, the willingness of children to accept a supernatural explanation does not make that explanation correct.
Even school kids can get marijuana as well, from what I've heard it's even easier than to buy cigarettes and alcohol because the prohibition of marijuana means that it comes from people who don't care who buys it.
@AndrewBCNZ NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 ;*) I understand everything because us religious people have superior minds to you atheists. ;*) You're just trying to save face because you have no counter-argument, and are frustrated because there's a viable retort against this argument, no matter how you try to spin it!!!!!!!!!!!! ;*) If this was a game of chess, your king would essentially be trapped between the other sides queen and rook!!!!!!!!! ;*)
@AndrewBCNZ Does the willingness of you self-proclaimed intellectual giant atheists to accept Stephen Dorking Hawking's ramblings about the universe "as fact" make them correct??????!!!!!! That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant stance to have, and is but another reason why people generally detest you fanatical atheists!!!!!!!
The prohibition of weed means that people will be afraid to sell it, unlike people who sell cigarettes, and I never saw anyone smoking weed at high school!!!! ;*O
@STEJTHEGREATEST Superior minds? SOMEBODY hasn't seen the statistics on the correlation between education and secularism (of course that doesn't show intellectual superiority, but it does suggest your claim to be absurd and arrogant). Alright, I'll try once more. If a parent tells a child something as "fact" the child will believe it. That's my point.
I don't accept anybody's "ramblings" as fact, and am uncertain about theoretical physics, seeing it simply as our best guess at the moment.
@AndrewBCNZ NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;*) I find it funny how you claim children's opinions "don't matter" seeing as how you claim they're more inclined to believe everything they're told, and yet you consider it to be a good indicator of someone's intelligence if they're able to remember everything they're told at school????????!!!! We've just witnessed yet another incident where an atheist contradicts himself!!! ;*( If your rhetoric didn't change all the time, people might actually take you seriously.
@STEJTHEGREATEST It's one thing to remember things that have been explained to them at school, especially if evidence is provided with it. It's another to simply believe something your parents tell you as fact, whether it's Santa, the tooth fairy or God. The point is, whether or not children (or anybody without evidence) believe in something is hardly overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure when I said anything about memory being an indicator of intelligence as I don't believe that, but sure.
@AndrewBCNZ The fact that you immediately mentioned education as a determining factor of one's intelligence after I said religious people are mentally superior means that you do subconsciously believe one's education reveals their intelligence! ;*) What's the matter, aren't you willing to stand by the words that come out of your big mouth?! ;*)
Evidence is highly subjective!!!! I could tell you that the fact that our lost teeth mysteriously disappear from under our cushions is proof of the...
@STEJTHEGREATEST If you look at my earlier comment, you'll see I specifically said it doesn't necessarily show intelligence but does suggest that your absurd claim is laughable.
What's the matter? Aren't you willing to read what I say without twisting it? =P
The EVIDENCE in that example is that the tooth disappears from under the pillow. The mention of the tooth fairy is the theory. It would be just as easy to say that a tiny wormhole opens and sucks the tooth into it. Both are equally valid...
@AndrewBCNZ ...theories. Thus, more evidence is needed. In this case that evidence comes in the form of a parent admitting to playing the part of the tooth fairy. This is how the scientific method works.
Belief in the tooth fairy is just a nice game for kids, and Santa provides a premise to swap gifts, also good for kids. Belief in God teaches kids to externalise blame and to simplify the world into black and white. Any moral lessons could be taught equally well without religious involvement.
@AndrewBCNZ How does belief in God teach children to blame things on others, when Christian doctrine is all about encouraging people to be open about things they've done wrong, and to confess, so that guilt won't weigh heavily on the throughout life?????/!!!!!!!!! That's a very good thing, and to be unwilling praise religion for that shows how ungrateful you are!!!!!!!
Nothing simplifies the world like science, which explains the predictable, and denies the existence of the unpredictable.
@AndrewBCNZ You can't say that education doesn't indicate one's intelligence, and yet still use it as a desperate attempt to insinuate that my flawless logic might in any way be flawed!!!!! ;*)
The idea of the tooth fairy has been believed for much longer than the idea of wormholes sucking teeth into them, and seeing as how our parents are older and wiser than us, it means we definitely shouldn't rule out the possibility of the tooth fairy taking away our lost teeth at night. ;*D
@AndrewBCNZ Tooth fairy's existence. ;*D You can't deny it, because you've never been awake at the time your missing tooth has been taken from under your pillow. Also, belief in the tooth fairy, Santa and God helps children to see that giving is such a great thing to do!!!!!! ;*D By arguing against those things, you're essentially encouraging children to become selfish and mean-spirited.
However, you believe that scientists have evidence to support their lofty claims even though they keep..
@STEJTHEGREATEST The only effect of the prohibition on marijuana sale or use at high school is that it's done more subtly but no less. I knew more people at high school who smoked weed than tobacco, although those who smoked tobacco did it more frequently because, unlike weed, it's chemically addictive.
I'd say it was more arrogant to assume that what you had been told without being given reason to be true and all others' beliefs false than to decide what to believe based on evidence.IJS.
@AndrewBCNZ A drug can't proliferate if it's only taken in a clandestine manner!!!!! If lots of people are doing it, then it is no longer being taken subtly!!!! If you're taking a drug privately, you can't encourage all your friends and acquaintances to take it!!!! That defies the point of subtle drug use, because someone's bound to grass you up!!!!!
You're in no position to accuse me of being arrogant when you reject religion out of hand, and display obvious bias towards atheism and science!
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet the statistics tell a different story. 540,000 New Zealand adults have smoked marijuana over the past year. Clearly prohibition is working brilliantly.
I reserve the right to reject out of hand anything for which there is no evidence other than a few people declaring it to be true (no reason given). That's not arrogance, that's common sense. I don't think it counts as a bias if it's just relying on facts (i.e. science)
But sure, I suppose believing fairy tales works too.
@AndrewBCNZ All their so-called "evidence" locked away in their labs where no one can ever see it. Face facts, you're not arguing from a standpoint of logic, you're arguing from a biased perspective, and that's because you're a stereotypical immoral atheist who wants to drag down people who are morally-superior you!!!!
540,000 people out of the millions who live in NZ smoke marijuana? That's hardly epidemic proportions. More people smoke cigarettes!!!!!!
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well that's about a 7th of the total population of the country. If you add to that number teenagers who smoke it and subtract children from the total population, the portion of the population who smoke it DOES reach epidemic proportions. And it's no wonder more people smoke tobacco, it's addictive and has been a major part of society for much longer.
Actually, this evidence is published in journals describing experiments and results which anybody could repeat for themselves.
@AndrewBCNZ In order in order for a problem to reach epidemic proportions, it has to affect MOST people, if not everyone!!!!!!!! Just because a percentage of a population is weaker-willed, and needs drugs as a crutch to get by in life, that doesn't mean it's going to affect everyone, and bring everyone down to that level!!!
Weed is addictive. People will argue vehemently for their right to smoke weed, and that's because weed has a strong grip on them, and they can't give it up!!!!! ;*(
@STEJTHEGREATEST Alright, so I used the word "epidemic" as a hyperbole. Scandal.
The point is that outlawing weed has not really made it more difficult to acquire, and many will attest to it being easier for kids to buy weed than alcohol. The only real effect of the ban has been the rise in organised crime. A better response would be to regulate it and tax it like mad to make it unaffordable.
Weed isn't chemically addictive like tobacco and therefore is much easier to quit.
@AndrewBCNZ Thanks!!!!!!! ;*D Outlawing weed means that dealers have to operate in secret, and are only able to sell to a few!!!!! Whereas if everyday shops were able to sell weed, then they could sell it to MANY people!!!!!!!!!! ;*( Don't forget that people who do recreational drugs are often reliant on their friends to put them in touch with dealers, and those of us who were bullied have no friends!!!!!!! ;*( Oh1!!!!!!!!!! It's hard to debate when you've only had 6 hours sleep!!!!!! ;*(
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet students still find it easier to get hold of than alcohol! That suggests that despite the "underground" nature (most people are actually pretty open about it anyway- in NZ at least) it's still able to become pretty widespead. Anyway, this thread's gone off on a BIT of a tangent.
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet it's true, the police can't arrest them unless they catch them in possession of it, just talking about it isn't enough. Besides, society's so relaxed about it that the police wouldn't look like heroes, in fact it could even be bad or public relations. Somewhere around 70% of the adult population has tried it at some point in their lives.
@AndrewBCNZ People trying drugs doesn't mean that they advocate them!!!! Lots of people have bad experiences with them, and lots of people don't see what the fuss is about!!!! ;*) Plus, most well-meaning parents don't want their kids to end up doing drugs because in lots of cases, drug use is the beginning of the end for people!!!!!!! ;*( The police would never look like villains for cracking down on drugs!!!!!! Drugs are, and always will be a crutch, just like atheism!!!!!! ;*)
@STEJTHEGREATEST Ok, first of all, NOT believing in fairy-tales is not a crutch.
Secondly, the police don't look bad for cracking down on hard drugs but most NZers just don't see the big deal about occasional marijuana use, just as people aren't all that concerned about smoking or drinking in moderation- it's a bad habit but not a big deal in their minds. Either way, the effect of prohibition, in NZ at least, is deregulation and organised crime. People who want weed can still get it easily.
@AndrewBCNZ Atheism opens a pandora's box of immorality for all its believers. Atheism is a crutch because it justifies immoral behaviour and discrimination.
Weed is often a gateway drug to harder that drugs that can seriously harm people!!! ;*( People who do weed have to be in touch with criminals who deal it, and these criminals will often have hard drugs as well!!!! ;*( People who believe weed is "doing them good" won't be afraid of experimenting with harder drugs, and that's the end. ;*(
@STEJTHEGREATEST Atheism does no such thing, it just forces people to consider their morals for their own and removes the excuse religion provides for bigotry and immorality (homophobia, racism etc).
That's right, weed has to be bought from criminals who also sell hard drugs. If it was legal it wouldn't have to be bought from criminals and this connection would be broken. The fact is weed is nowhere near as bad for you as other drugs (although still unhealthy) and should be treated appropriately
@AndrewBCNZ Atheism condones murder in the form of abortion, promotes torturous experimentation on animals in the name of progress, endorses the production of weapons of mass destruction and war, and encourages discrimination towards those with differing belief systems. Atheism also doesn't do any good whatsoever, unlike religion.
If weed was legalised, it'd only be a matter of time before people argued for the legalisation of harder drugs. It's a slippery slope, and the end of humanity.
@STEJTHEGREATEST Atheism does none of the above. I'm an atheist as well as a pacifist and a vegetarian. I think as soon as a fetus has a nervous system capable of suffering it's a terrible thing to destroy it and I see all religions as equal (although of course extremism is worse than moderation), I also have huge respect for many religious people, if not for their religion.
Atheism promotes treating humans as humans regardless of beliefs or race, unlike many religion.
@AndrewBCNZ You're only a pacifist when it comes to other atheists! ;*) I remember how you started this conversation, when you attempted to harm my self-esteem by just laughing at what I said, as if to imply, "I can't believe you were dumb enough to say that." Plus, I don't see any hard evidence of anything you do to help the world, but there's COPIOUS evidence available which proves you atheists to be aggressive, adversarial, and hostile to all who are different to you!!!! ;*(
@AndrewBCNZ Actually, when you say you're a pacifist, that suggests that you're against all forms of confrontation, even the non-violent ones that happen on Internet discussion forums!!!!!!!!! All forms of confrontation, even non-violent ones which primarily involve vocal discourse can lead to feelings of ill-will and resentment, and these are just the first steps towards a violent altercation. It's clear you've harboured ill-will towards me from the start, and what savage, drug-advocating...
@STEJTHEGREATEST Definition: Pacifist- someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes. Just saying...
I harbour no ill-will towards you or any other religious person, I believe people are ultimately good and have to potential to be intelligent and generous- I dislike your worldview because it makes that potential harder to reach. People are distinct from their world-views and thus I can hate religion while having no problem with religious people.
@AndrewBCNZ My world view is one of the reasons why I'm happier in life than you are. If you were happy in life, you wouldn't spend your days on YouTube, watching and commenting on atheist videos that are made as an attempt to attack, and bring down religious people to your level of depravity. Most religious people scarcely acknowledge you atheists, and that's because they know they're better than you, and that you aren't worthy of any of their time.
@STEJTHEGREATEST The legalisation of marijuana is no more a slippery slope than the legalisation of alcohol was in the 1930s. It is not the end of humanity, policies on each drug should be judged on the merits of each policy as it relates to each drug. That isn't a slippery slope, that's just reasonable.
@AndrewBCNZ All hard drugs were created in recent decades for medical purposes!!!!! That's why people were still discovering new side-effects from taking them recreationally even in the eighties and nineties!!!!!!!!! ;*( If they were as old as you say they are, all of their side-effects would've been well documented from as early as the fifties!!!!!! ;*O And the reason alcohol was legalised is because the makers of it managed to convince everyone that it was a "good, harmless" thing, and it was
@STEJTHEGREATEST Oh, and really? The "end of humanity"? Calm down, it might not be good but all those drugs have been legal before and humanity survived. There's no need to be a prima donna.
@AndrewBCNZ Only later that alcohol was discovered to heighten aggression, and make people less wary of the consequences of starting fights!!!!!!! ;*( If anything, the legalisation of alcohol is a lesson that teaches us why other drugs shouldn't be legalised!!!!!!!!! ;*O
@STEJTHEGREATEST Except that the prohibition of alcohol has already been tried and shown to fail (disastrously- before prohibition organised crime was rare and weak).
That was the real reason for the lifting of prohibition after only a decade.
The negative health effects of alcohol have been known for centuries, actually, and the discovery dates of hard drugs are irrelevant to the idea of judging policy based on its own merit as it relates to each drug... not sure what you were getting at there.
@AndrewBCNZ Atheist wouldn't resent me for calling him out on his decadent, unwholesome lifestyle? You people want to feel like you're doing the right thing by living so destructively, which is why you're so hostile towards people who show you the error of your ways!
Just because a small percentage of societies will always need the crutch of drugs, that doesn't mean the law should be built around them. It should be discouraged. Non-drug users aren't going to take them because it's forbidden.
@STEJTHEGREATEST But that very viewpoint has been shown, repeatedly, not to work, and just legalising a drug isn't the same as encouraging it. It should certainly be discouraged, just as alcohol and tobacco are discouraged (except more- these are under-regulated) through heavy taxes and regulations.
What decadent, unwholesome lifestyle? I don't pray or go to church, aside from that, I don't imagine my lifestyle's all that different from a religious person, unless they're into self-flagellation.
@AndrewBCNZ Just because lengths taken to prevent drug use don't have the desired success rate, that doesn't mean we should forget about discouraging them altogether. That's a quitter's way out, and encouraging people to quit when the going gets tough would be very bad for humanity. I should've guessed that you'd be in favour of that kind of thing though, seeing as how it takes a quitter to make an atheist. After all, to be an atheist, you have to quit in your efforts to find God.
@STEJTHEGREATEST It's not that these measures haven't had much success (although they haven't), if they had only a small impact on reducing drug use they would be worthwhile were it not for the side-effects of these policies (a massive growth in organised crime) which are extremely destructive to society.
It's not a matter of quitting in efforts to find God, it's a matter of appreciating the universe without diminishing it with cheap fairytales.
@AndrewBCNZ There's always going to be people who break the law for some reason or other. If they couldn't profit from breaking drug laws, they'd profit from breaking some other law. They wouldn't suddenly become upstanding citizens and forget about all the other illicit ways of making money!!!!! ;*(
Nothing cheapens the universe like your belief that nothing exists other than that which science can predict. That horrendously oversimplifies everything that we know and perceive around us.
@STEJTHEGREATEST But the 1920s showed us very clearly that the prohibition approach did nothing but give those criminals money and, by extension, power, causing more to join them in search of the money to be had dealing in underground unregulated substances.
Actually, nothing cheapens the universe more than the view that, if we don't understand something, it's supernatural and there's no point in trying to learn more about it. That's a cop-out and what you would call a "quitter's way out."
@AndrewBCNZ When drugs are prohibited and more people deal them, that's when you worsen the punishments for people who get caught dealing them, and eventually the dealers will decide that it isn't worth the risk of dealing, when they could easily make an honest living without always having to look over their shoulder!!!!!! ;*D
God and his influence on the universe is FAR HARDER to understand than the minor parts of the universe that can be predicted. Face facts, you're taking the easy route.
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet even when the death penalty is applied to drug offences, the reward has historically proven great enough that people continue to deal and gangs continue to grow. That's a nice idea, but one that's been shown not to work, I'm afraid.
But with explanations relying on God or gods, investigation rarely extends beyond "it's part of a divine plan." I'm not seeing how that's harder than investigating the truth. Besides, the truth has nothing to do with ease of understanding.
@AndrewBCNZ Life imprisonment is worse than the death penalty. No drug dealer in the right mind would risk death or life imprisonment by dealing drugs when there are other ways to make money!!!!!!! Logic disagrees with you.
As an atheist, you can't begin to grasp just how complex God's divine plan is, seeing as how it extends to all lifeforms in the universe. If the world's greatest religious thinkers find it incredibly hard to explain God's plan, then I don't think your opinion has any merit
Yet drug dealing continues to grow even with harsh punishments, people aren't always logical, and those who are willing to kill for money- as these people are- frequently aren't "in their right minds."
The complexity or otherwise of this plan has nothing to do with whether it really exists. As I'm not seeing any reason to believe it does, I'll accept the null hypothesis that it doesn't.
@AndrewBCNZ You're telling me that people who covertly deal drugs, and hire gun-toting bodyguards to protect them, aren't operating logically????????!!!!!!! If they weren't operating logically, they wouldn't pay for bodyguards when they could just spend that money on themselves, and they wouldn't hide in the shadows, only selling drugs to people who actively sought them. Instead they'd be all over the streets, trying to get as much money as possible before being locked up.
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YYYYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YYYYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
@STEJTHEGREATEST Hmmm...for all the accusations of harbouring ill-will towards you, you seem awfully aggressive an intolerant of people who refuse to believe in something without reason. Repeatedly calling people of different opinions stupid doesn't help your case. You'd be better off making reasonable arguments which suggest they're mislead. I haven't seen you do much of that.
@AndrewBCNZ Like a typical atheist, you're greatly underestimating people, and oversimplifying things in order to make your own argument sound more plausible. For all your talk about believing "everyone is capable of greatness" when trying to convince me that atheists are good people, you sure contradict yourself a lot!!! ;*(
Show me where I've called you stupid, or where I've displayed hostility towards you without first being provoked!!!
@STEJTHEGREATEST I don't see the contradiction in saying that all people could be great and lead happy lives and saying that atheists are good people. Those two points are just about completely irrelevant to each other. Study after study has shown that there is no correlation between morality and religiousity (no matter how many times religious people claim otherwise) except for a slight negative one because religion can twist people's morality to being unenlightened and suited to the dark ages.
@AndrewBCNZ You claim that all people can be great, but then claim that all the conniving, wealthy drug dealers in the world are devoid of logic in order to suit your argument!!! I pointed out the obvious fallacy in that comment!!!!! ;*D
Anyone in a survey can lie and say that they're an upstanding person of strong morals when questioned. You do it all the time, but then you forget about that and say things which shine bright light on your morally-challenged nature!!!!!! ;*(
@STEJTHEGREATEST CAN be great. Not ARE great. I just think that people who choose to make a living out of violence and peddling poison aren't quite thinking straight- not "devoid of logic": the world doesn't exist in simple black and white. There is no fallacy.
Studies on this kind of thing don't necessarily mean surveys...they often look at criminal records, psychological tests of generosity and/or cruelty and so on. Also, I'd just like to point out YET ANOTHER unprovoked attack on my morality.
@AndrewBCNZ By saying that drug dealers who make a living out of violence and peddling poison aren't quite thinking straight, you also have to admit that the likes of Einstein (who was essential to the development of nuclear weapons) and Stephen Hawking (who baselessly attacks the credibility of religious people for no reason other than his innate bitterness) also aren't thinking straight. They're just as bad as drug dealers.
Also, why would scientists be given access to criminal records...
@STEJTHEGREATEST Einstein didn't develop nuclear weapons for that purpose, he was simply trying to expand our understanding of the universe and that knowledge was misused. I can't speak for Steven Hawking but attacks on religion are certainly not unprovoked and unnecessary. They're justified and essential for any hope of escape from dark-age morality and denial of clear fact in favour of dogma.
Social scientists use those resources to research trends in criminality to help governments.
@AndrewBCNZ L, do you think I'm completely naive to expect me to believe that Einstein's "innocent" work to expand understanding of the universe could also be used as weapons as mass destruction to...
@AndrewBCNZ Coerce other countries into giving up their free will, and letting us plunder them? Also, Einstein's work did next to nothing to heighten our understanding of the universe. That's why...
@AndrewBCNZ And detailed accounts of the behaviour of lots of people just for the sake of a study they want to carry out on a casual whim? All of us have the right to forbid our personal information from being distributed to anyone who requests it, therefore I don't believe you.
What I said about your lack of morals was a factual statement, based on a wealth of evidence from all your posts in this thread. It wasn't an attack.
@STEJTHEGREATEST The fact is, governments do keep track of criminal records and allow statisticians and advisors to use these resources.
I have extremely strong morals, actually, it clearly wasn't based on "a wealth of evidence" or else it wouldn't be so inaccurate. It clearly was an attack based on anti-atheist bigotry. Good job.
@AndrewBCNZ Atheists" then you have to also admit that your baseless slander against religion, and religious people is also biggoted, and outstandingly hypocritical. What's this, atheist being...
Einstein expanded our understanding of the atom and how it worked. This was his aim. That this knowledge was used to create weapons capable of ending life on earth was a terrible side-effect but one which he can hardly be held accountable for as he didn't plan for it to happen. At worst he could be accused of being naive.
Einstein's work did expand our understanding of the universe, it didn't complete it of course but it made...
@AndrewBCNZ Einstein had to be aware of the possibility of his work being abused to create WMDs. No one can be that dumb. Also, you're forgetting the critical fact that Einstein recommended that the American government pursue the development of nuclear weapons. Therefore, not only was he NOT against his work being used for nukes, but he ENCOURAGED IT. He was a butcher, there's no escaping that fact.
How can you say that the claims made by religious men in regards to understanding the...
@STEJTHEGREATEST...huge strides. Nobody fully understands everything about the universe, of course, but that includes religious people. I'm afraid just declaring something to be true based on faith doesn't count as understanding the universe. It counts as making up stories.
I never made "baseless slander against religion," I am justifiably critical of it. Everything I say about it is based on fact- a key difference and what makes my criticisms un-hypocritical.
@AndrewBCNZ The universe are false, but blindly believe Einstein's theories despite not being able to study atoms and molecules up close, like Einstein and the scientific elites could? Face facts, you believe them because they've conned you into believing that they're smarter than you, and that their opinions hold more authority.
How is your criticism of religion justifiable? You haven't brought any proof that sticks against religion. All you've brought is overstated opinions and blind hate.
@STEJTHEGREATEST I didn't know that Einstein had encouraged the development of nuclear weapons, that's interesting, I suppose being a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany at the time he can't be blamed for wanting to pursue any possible means of helping the Allies in the war.
I don't "blindly believe" anything, actually. I see most of Einstein's theories as essentially the best guess we've got and that's based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the evidence. Because my understanding's limited...
@AndrewBCNZ The Allies didn't need nukes to win WW2. Germany had surrendered by the time they were ready to use, which means that the surviving Japanese army faced the prospect of a "5 countries against one" war against the UK, USA, Russia, France and Canada. Any who says we needed to nuke Japan to win the war is wrong. That was just a matter of Einstein wanting to rule the planet through fear and coercion.
Why is Einstein's theory "the best guess we've got" and not the religious...
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...I don't accept it fully, although friends I have who HAVE studied some of the evidence assure me that it's pretty strong so I accept it over any alternative theories while still being open to new theories in the future if they have stronger evidence behind them.
Alright: religion is based on nothing but old myths and blind faith- not evidence or reason. But not only is there no reason to accept it as truth, but it enforces an archaic and often bigoted moral code and blocks...
@AndrewBCNZ Explanation, which I add, is believed by more people due to its greater credibility, and has been an established answer for much longer than Einstein's theory? Einstein's theory is an upstart theory, and the only people who put any stock in it, are the scientists who make money from it, and a small percentage of non-scientist atheists whom are easily led into believing outlandish claims, due to their bitterness towards those with strongly-developed faith.
@AndrewBCNZ ...reasonable scientific progress and research wherever that research disagrees with religion's blind dogma.
That's a small start of my justification for criticising religion. I could go on but that'd be a spectacular waste of time. Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" presents some compelling arguments which I largely agree with as well.
@AndrewBCNZ What makes your friends' opinions, and Richard Dawkins' opinions so valid in this matter? For all we know, your friends could have blindly believed everything the nearby scientists told them the evidence proved, without really taking the time to scrutinise it thoroughly. As for Dawkins, he's an evolutionary biologist who is not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to make arguments regarding God's existence. He knows nothing about the universe, it's nature, or creation, and...
@STEJTHEGREATEST Dawkins is qualified to discuss and criticise religion simply by virtue of him being an intelligent and well-informed person who has put a lot of time into considering the subject.
I'm glad the subject has turned to your absurd denial of evolution because I'm far better informed on this topic than I am on the physics around Einstein's theories.
Evolution is supported by EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence we've found in nature, from fossils to DNA to the very distribution of ...
@AndrewBCNZ Dawkins isn't intelligent. There's vast logical holes in his rhetoric, and I've been able to point out fallacy after fallacy in every quote on religion I've ever seen him make. He isn't well-informed either, he's just memorised lots of information about Charlie Darwin's unproven evolutionary theory. You can say all that you want about it, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the world considers it a theory, rather than a law. By denying that, you're showing how out of...
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well to claim that Dawkins isn't intelligent is just absurd and doesn't credit any more of a response than that. He is well informed as he has been one of many researching the theory and finding more and more proof, as well as observing the evidence found by other researchers. The reason evolution is called a theory isn't difficult to grasp. Any hypothesis is a theory until it is mathematically proven. However, most theories can't be proven in this way by their very nature...
@AndrewBCNZ Wait a minute, you're arguing that Dawkins is intelligent and knowledgable, when one of his arguments is that "we're all atheists" seeing as how he believes all religious people don't believe in certain gods? If anything, that only highlights his poor education, and limited grasp on the facts of life, seeing as how in the early pages of the Bible, God alludes to the existence of other gods, but advises us not to worship them. Therefore, religious people believe in ALL the gods.
@STEJTHEGREATEST Do you honestly believe in Ra, Zeus, Odin and Shiva etc? If you believe in all gods, you're one of very few, and as I understood it, the Bible calls other gods false- meaning they DON'T exist.
His point is just that if you choose one religion, you are in effect rejecting the rest. He might have been better off saying "we're all heathens" but the point is valid.
Also, you seem to be confusing "religious people" for "Christians" there- careful of that.
@AndrewBCNZ I'm open-minded to the existence of all gods. Anyone with strong faith, who operates on a higher level of mental perception is open-minded towards all gods. By calling all other gods false, the Bible is claiming that although they exist, their claims towards outright divinity, righteousness and to the throne of ultimate godhood, are false. Only the main God, the father of Jesus, and creator of the universe is the holder of the throne of ultimate godhood. The others are lesser gods.
@AndrewBCNZ If Ricky Dorkins makes such shocking errors in judgment, as to lose sight of the separate definitions on words like atheists and heathens, then why should he be trusted on such a profound subject as the origin and creation of all life? It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that Dorkins is a highly fallible, horribly irrational person, and it seems like my theory of him being a special ed student is strengthening on a daily basis. I bet Dorkins is comforted by the colour yellow.
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...know what you're talking about there, as I've said, the evidence for evolution is perfectly available for us all in journals, books, museums and all around us.
The scientific community is not prone to accepting groundbreaking theories without copious evidence, and they have unanimously (at least among those who are internationally respected) accepted evolution, even religious scientists only haves lightly different views on it such as adding a point of evolution for the soul.
@AndrewBCNZ Internationally respected scientists are only respected by about a hundred or so people, and all of those are other scientists whom have been mentally conditioned to think inside the same intellectual prison as other scientists. Scientists whom are only respected by other fruitcake scientists, whom are totally out of touch with society, don't convince me that they're authoritative sources on these matters at all. I can only begin to respect someone if they're respected by SANE people
@AndrewBCNZ The fact that Dawkins has spent lots of time researching a lie doesn't make him well-informed or intelligent, it makes him gullible and easily-led.
It's funny how Dawkins and the small percentage of paranoid, irrational atheists that follow him claims he's finding mountains of evidence, and yet these mountains are still so well hidden! I didn't know invisible mountains existed! It's obvious to me that Dawkins never outgrew the lying phase that children go through.
@AndrewBCNZ If most theories can't be proven without doubt, then it's irrational to attack a belief system which promotes good will and tolerance, and endorse an outlandish theory that can't be proven, like evolution.
The round Earth theory isn't impossible to prove. People have flown in one direction and ended up back in the country from where they started. People have seen with their own eyes from space, and from orbit that the world is round. To say something obvious can't be proven...
@STEJTHEGREATEST And people have seen animals evolve, over generations, into distinct populations. People have also seen the remains of intermediate stages of evolution between species, others have seen the genetic evidence that all life is descended from a common ancestor. These are all very convincing "proofs" but they aren't mathematical proofs, just as the round earth can't be mathematically proven by flying around it, it's just such strong evidence that it can be treated as proof.
@AndrewBCNZ It seems you don't have a very strong grasp on the definition of evolution. Evolution is defined as happening over tens of thousands of years. There can't possibly be any living witnesses who have seen animals physically change over generations. Animals that live in community-like groups don't break away from each other, either. God created us so that we're all dependent on each other. In order to feel good and happy, we have to earn the love and respect of people and women around...
@AndrewBCNZ Us. No one who is an outcast is ever truly happy. That's why animals will never, ever break away from the main group, as that means solitude, loneliness, emptiness and no success with the opposite sex. No one is ever truly independent. As shocking as it might seem, I'm dependent on people like you, because you make me look like a genius, and you're dependent on me for your education, and frequent doses of sanity.
Genetic evidence isn't something that can be seen with the naked...
@AndrewBCNZ Eye in everyday, UNMANIPULATED conditions. The "genetic evidence" witnessed by scientists is in unnatural conditions created by laboratory environments, and visible only through machinery designed by them, produced in such a way to show the results which they so desire.
Evolution is nowhere near proven. Even if it was proven (ONLY beyond reasonable doubt) it would still be considered a law by everyone, rather than a theory.
Your fallacious belief that life isn't what we make...
@AndrewBCNZ I heard that Ricky Dorkins was a learning support student at school, and that scientists only accepted him because they don't want children with special needs to give up on education.
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...and are instead tested by being constantly tested against new evidence. Evolution isn't the only theory like that. Heliocentricity (that the sun is at the center of the solar system) is still a theory. So is the round Earth theory. But these are still undeniably true. So is evolution.
Scientists don't lie about the ages of fossils- they couldn't because their research is available for all to see and they would be caught. Liberty University has a strict dogmatic message...
@AndrewBCNZ For certain because it can't be proven mathematically is ridiculous, and a cop-out. You're using it as a crutch because you know evolution is FAR from proven, and you're trying to downplay this fact, and make it seem as if only a trivial technicality stands between evolution being proven. Evolution will only be proven if most of the world accepts evolution, and rejects the idea of God's existence. In a world of enlightened religious people, a destructive parasite like Dawkins is...
@STEJTHEGREATEST As explained previously, I wasn't saying that. My point was that evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt as has the heliocentric model of the solar system and the round earth have been.
Also, the truth isn't based on democracy, I'm afraid, and repeatedly claiming something to be true doesn't make it so.
Besides, MOST people, at least in the West, DO accept evolution as undeniable fact, AND believe in God, they just aren't fundamentalists (a fashion only started...
@AndrewBCNZ Make it illustrates the reason why atheism and success are polar opposites. The most successful people strongly believe that perception is reality, which is why if they believe they can do a thing, THEY WILL DO IT. If they believe something is true, then it becomes true. The fact that God created this universe so that it delivers to people the things that they ask for is but further proof of how much He loves us all, and wants the best for all of us.
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...in the Victorian era) and therefore just believe in evolution guided by God- a cop-out from reality, certainly, but closer to the truth than treating an old myth has historical fact.
No, the owners of the fossil (often the public- in museums) simply don't want amateurs to damage valuable fossils in an attempt to carry out their own research which they are unqualified to do. They only want experts who know what they're looking at.
@AndrewBCNZ Pitied, and looked down upon as a fool for being out of touch with society.
It doesn't matter if or not the research of evolutionists is available for all to see. You've admitted yourself that in order to double check the ages of fossils, people have to first be accepted by the owners of the fossils, by becoming qualified in evolutionary biology and the like. In other words, the owners of the fossils want people to think inside the same box that they do before they'll allow it.
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...to push and therefore ignores any evidence that doesn't suit it. This is why respected scientists (including religious ones) haven't changed their views in light of this research- it wasn't accurate. In order to come up with such conclusions you need to completely discount the entire idea of Carbon dating- an accurate measure of age- which is just ridiculous. It's basically recognising that some evidence is inconvenient so just pretending it doesn't exist.
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...familiarised himself with the "evidence" behind religious claims.
The evidence for evolution isn't that there is life everywhere but that it's distributed the way it is. Why did every single marsupial and monotreme decide to wander from Mount Ararat to Australia with none stopping along the way? Not to mention how? That's just one example, but the distribution of species on the planet is EXACTLY as would be expected according to evolution.
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...fossils at museums you can. But first you need to become qualified and go through the same processes that scientists go to- study evolutionary biology and radio-carbon dating at university, gain field experience and apply for a grant to carry out the research. Scientists aren't some elite who have a monopoly over facts. They're just people who have spent their time studying a particular scientific field and are qualified to draw conclusions from their observations.
@AndrewBCNZ Tick tock, tick tock. I'm growing a beard, waiting here!!!!!!!!! Stop masturbating to the fat slob Christopher Hitchens, who failed miserably at taking care of himself, and get back on here so that I can prove more of your arguments wrong, and feel intelligent at your expense.
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well I'm glad you can fool yourself into thinking you're making reasonable arguments, I suppose, as long as nobody else is fooled it should at least be good for your self-esteem.
And yeah, Hitchens did lead an extremely unhealthy lifestyle but it's still extremely distasteful to attack the recently dead.
@AndrewBCNZ I bet Chrissy Hitchens had to go down on his knees in Heaven, and apologise for all his transgressions as an atheist here on Earth, and beg for Jesus to lead him, as his Lord. In fact, Chris is probably carrying one of Jesus' bags now, even as we speak. Lets just hope there's no food in that bag, otherwise Jesus might have to do without lunch. ;*(
@STEJTHEGREATEST Hitchens was a chain smoker and a heavy drinker- overeating was not a particular problem so there's no need for crude insults in THAT direction.
As far as world hunger goes we're better of carrying out scientific research into higher-yield crops and preventing desertification. Also putting charity money towards food and shelter instead of handing out old books could help, just saying.
@AndrewBCNZ I bet your hero, Chrissy Hitchens is cheering me on in this argument from Heaven, now that he knows the truth. I bet he's shaking his head in dismay at your messages and thinking, "I can't believe I used to be like that." ;*(
@AndrewBCNZ And I bet you wish this argument could go back to us both only posting one message at a time to each other, don't you? It must be hard having to think of so many lies everytime you come here. I take it that's why it takes you at least 24 hours to respond, lol!!!!!!! ;*(
@STEJTHEGREATEST Actually it's been taking this long to respond because I've been doing things other than posting on youtube...
1 message at a time would be easier, but when there's more to be said not much can be done.
Well, as Pascal's Wager pointed out, if you're right then you can laugh at my misfortune, whereas if I'm right I get no bragging rights because after death we're simply gone. However, that argument is flawed enough not to count as an argument against atheism anyway, just bad luck
@STEJTHEGREATEST Actually it's been taking this long to respond because I've been doing things other than posting on youtube...
1 message at a time would be easier, but when there's more to be said not much can be done.
Well, as Pascal's Wager pointed out, if you're right then you can laugh at my misfortune, whereas if I'm right I get no bragging rights because after death we're simply gone. However, that argument is flawed enough not to count as an argument against atheism anyway, just bad luck
@STEJTHEGREATEST Actually it's been taking this long to respond because I've been doing things other than posting on youtube...
1 message at a time would be easier, but when there's more to be said not much can be done.
Well, as Pascal's Wager pointed out, if you're right then you can laugh at my misfortune, whereas if I'm right I get no bragging rights because after death we're simply gone. However, that argument is flawed enough not to count as an argument against atheism anyway, just bad luck
@AndrewBCNZ And by the way, this thread has now got 155 replies!!!!!! That's a noteworthy number, because that's the most points Steve Yzerman the hockey player ever scored in a season!!!!!!!!! ;*D I love him!!!!!!!! ;*P
@AndrewBCNZ How do you put an end to world hunger? Send Chrissy Hitchen's body to a third world country so they can cook him for a lifetime's supply of... I was going to say meat, but in reality it'd be a lifetime's supply of lard. Still, I guess eating lard is better than eating nothing. After all, I heard that George Foreman was raised on lard butties back in the day, and look how he turned out!!!!!!! It seems that Chrissy Hitchen's is going to be useful after all!!!!!!!
By the way, who wouldn't have loved it if Kira had slapped Keiko down to the floor for being so arrogant that she thought she could talk to Kira like she was a disagreeable piece of fungus or something? Seriously, these atheists don't do anything to support their cases when they come off as being such pompous idiots.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
By the way, I have a massive crush on Kira, and I will be mentioning her in my book celebrating the supremacy of religion, and critiquing the wrongdoings of the atheist troublemakers in the world.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@trekfreek - oh, and children don't need to be taught controversies. They need to be taught scientific facts.
vIQleS 3 months ago
@trekfreek - I didn't cut out the bits I didn't like. I cut out the bits of the episode that didn't relate to this storyline or to the point they were trying to make (imho). That's an important distinction which I think you've missed. I do agree with you tho - "everyone's beliefs are equally valid" is relativism which is bollocks. I doubt that any atheists want to "destroy" any sort of school - we'd just rather religion wasn't taught to children as factual
vIQleS 3 months ago
@vIQleS If religion shouldn't be taught as being fact at schools, then why should science be taught as fact at schools? Your wishes to force children to believe that science "is fact" and religion "false" is no better than the brainwashing programs Hitler and his Nazis forced children to endure back in the 30s-40s. Let the kids make up their own minds, and stop trying to force negativity on them.
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 months ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Trololololol
AndrewBCNZ 2 months ago
@AndrewBCNZ Attempting to undermine another person's argument just by laughing proves that you have no substantial counter-argument.
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 months ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Alright then, science should be taught because it's fact and based on reality. Religion shouldn't because it's based on opinion and blind faith.
Better?
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Your response would be better if it wasn't wrong. The flimsy evidence science has supporting it is available only to the scientific elites who CLAIM IT EXISTS, and your belief in evidence you've never seen makes you irrational, especially since it can't communicate to you like God can. Science will always be inferior to religion because it only attempts to explain what it can predict, whereas religion explains the most complicated questions known to mankind. Religion 1, science 0.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST The whole point of science is that it is just a matter of examining evidence which is available to everybody. The "scientific elites" are just those who have taken the time to study this evidence in detail and search for more evidence or clues about the planet. Religion claims to answer great complicated questions but it does this by just declaring something to be fact for no reason other than that it wants SOMETHING, and expecting it to be believed. Religion: 0, I'm afraid.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Science is okay if you're only wanting knowledge about things that can be predicted, and works wonders under the veil of simplicity that is laboratory testing, but operating under the belief that everything in the universe and beyond can be predicted is just plain naive. Seeing as how science explains things by successfully predicting what will happen, that means it will never be able to explain the unpredictable things.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST You're right that science attempts to learn what can be learnt. Things which are unknowable are just that, I'm not sure exactly what constitutes unknowable but I'd hope that even if you believe that some things are that doesn't stop you from trying to learn what you can learn.
And what exactly is the alternative to science? As far as I can see, you seem to be advocating just making answers up which hardly seems worthwhile
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Just because something can't be predicted, that doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything about it. It's possible to learn a great deal through logical interpretation of the actions of unpredictable entities, and religious people specialise in their logical analyses. Religious people can explain more tan scientists can because scientists are locked into a certain mindset which involves them needing to predict things. Religious people are generally less rigid.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST I'm not quite sure where you've got this idea that science is all about predicting things. In most cases the only predictions involved are as part of experiments to test a hypothesis.
Science is just a matter of examining the world around us and learning more about it, how it came to be like that and sometimes predicting what it will do in the future.
The only way in which the religious alternative is "less rigid" is that it isn't limited by facts or the real world in general.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ You make it sound as if the need for prediction is only a small facet of science, but seeing as how experimentation and prediction are science's means of proving things, that means that any aspect of science that doesn't delve into prediction of events falls into the category of guesswork rather than factuality, and seeing as how religion's greatest thinkers have had far more time to analyse religious texts than scientists, I trust their explanations of the unpredictable more.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST I'm now wondering what you mean by the "unpredictable," could you please give me an example? I'm also left wondering why you think that having time to read over religious texts will reveal answers. How do you know which religious texts to analyse? How do you know ANY religious texts have the answers? How can you be sure they aren't all just old myths and fairy tales with a few often out-dated moral lessons but no value beyond that to understanding the universe?
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Well starters, the ominpotent being that is God is unpredictable. How can you make predictions regarding a being that is infinitely superior to you? Being able to consistently predict the behaviour of another would make you SUPERIOR TO THEM, in a sense, and that's why it will never happen. Also, humanity will never be in the position to create a universe of the same magnitude as this one, which is why we scientists will never be able to make predictions about this universe, either.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST But how do you even know that there IS an omnipotent being? That requires faith, i.e. is not based on evidence and therefore shouldn't be taught to impressionable minds in schools which should be left to decide on the subject for themselves (children have a predisposition to believe in a god of some kind anyway because they've evolved to accept authority without question). We don't need to create another universe to examine the one we're in and science is the only way to do that
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ The fact that the idea of religion, and religious texts have endured for so long, and proven so useful to humanity adds credence to the idea of God existing.
Because science can never hope to fully explain our universe, you will never be able to say the scientific explanation of how the universe came to be is factual, and therefore ruling out the religious explanation is depriving children of information, which could be considered child abuse.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Religion satisfies a part of the human mind that wants answers. When scientific explanations weren't available it was possible for cultures to make stuff up and call it fact, i.e. religion.
Science doesn't need to fully explain EVERYTHING in the universe to be considered factual, that's just absurd.
The "religious explanation" is pure fiction made up in the absence of science and to teach it to children as fact is essentially misleading them and COULD be considered child abuse.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Then why is it that when children are given the choice of scientific explanations and religious explanations, they generally go with religion? That's not child abuse, that's just letting them have freedom in what they want to believe. There you go with your "inner-Hitler" again, which all you atheists seem to have, with how you try to force your negative, limiting beliefs on everyone. You atheists are a direct threat to humanity's intellectual freedom, and I intend to stop you all.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Children have a known pre-disposition to believe in a deity as it is an evolutionary advantage for them to be able to accept authority (e.g. their parents') without question. That has nothing to do with the truth of either argument. I'm just trying to think of all those cases of atheists killing believers for holding different world-views. I'm sure they must exist, after all, we have an "inner-Hitler" and are a threat to intellectual freedom. Nope. I'm not having any luck. Sorry
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ When looking for atheist butchers, you don't have to look any further than Einstein. His nukes killed millions, and have threatened the existence of all life since they were even conceived.
If it's an evolutionary advantage for children to accept authority, then why do they rebel so much? Why do they go through a notorious period of growth known as the "terrible twos" where they're almost impossible to control? Why is it that school teachers had to physically beat children before?
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST It's not a matter of atheists who were responsible for deaths, Besides, I said "for holding difference world-views." I.e. killing people BECAUSE they were atheists and their victims were not. No examples exist, as far as I know.
It's an advantage for children to accept authority in general, which is why children believe their parents stories about Santa etc.. I'll give you points for creativity though, I've never heard the terrible twos being used as proof of God before.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Thanks! Given the fact that atheists are generally in favour of drug use, and the callous act of murder that is abortion, I don't think it'll be long before drunk atheists lose what little self-control they have and decide to shoot people just for being theists.
With you saying children accept God because it's an advantage for them to seek authority, are you saying that atheists who reject God, are AGAINST authority, and therefore more likely to embrace anarchy and lawlessness?
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST I'm just wondering where "in favour of drug use" comes from... Oh well, I won't get into abortion here except to say that it obviously shouldn't be used recklessly. Well, NOW I'm sure you're trolling. Good. If not you clearly haven't really talked to atheists or thought about what I just said OR about the whole idea of an evolutionary advantage.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Lots of atheists that I've come across in the past are in favour of legalising all recreational drugs, and it just so happens that legalising recreational drugs will be the beginning of the end of humanity. It'll drag humanity down lower than it's ever been before. Atheists are very detrimental to humanity in other ways, too.
If a person doesn't want to submit to any authority in life, then the only alternative is anarchy. You can't sit on the fence here, it's one or the other.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST There are some good arguments to be made in favour of the legalisation of some recreational drugs. I don't say that because I think people should use them but for purely economic reasons which I won't get into. I seriously doubt that it would be the "beginning of the end of humanity."
As you grow beyond childhood, the human brain develops to not accept authority blindly. We still accept it, but only after questioning it. Children don't bother with that and therefore accept God.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ Legalising recreational drugs would encourage people to hide away from their problems in life, and let them think that when the going gets tough, there's always drugs to help them drown out the reality and get high. That would result in generations of weak-willed people who crumble at the first sign of adversity. It would be a massive step back for society.
Children don't accept authority blindly. They rebel often, like I've already said. Therefore their belief in God is logical.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST The point I was making about children was that they're decision to accept authority is not based on logical evaluation, but on short-termed mood-swings. Children ARE predisposed (this isn't opinion, it's established fact) to follow authority, despite occasionally throwing a tantrum and "rebelling."
The fact of the matter is that people ARE able to access recreational drugs, legalized or not. Legalising them would just weaken the gangs and allow them to be regulated and taxed.
AndrewBCNZ 1 month ago
@AndrewBCNZ How is it an "established fact" that children are predisposed to follow authority? Anyone who was genetically designed designed to follow authority would do it ALL THE TIME without question. Dogs for instance, are bred to be subservient to their owners, and they ALWAYS ARE. Anytime an owner is mad at a dog, the dog will behave submissively.
If drugs become widely acceptable, then no one will think any less of people who do them, which would lead to even politicians doing them.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 month ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST The key there is "predisposed". That DOESN'T mean EVERY time, it means that they are more likely than otherwise, and as I've said, the significant point is that they don't decide whether to follow based on their understanding of the reasoning but on their mood.
Legalising drugs wouldn't result in them becoming widely acceptable, they'd be regulated and taxed. Even so, I'm not proposing legalising hard drugs, just reviewing drug laws as prohibition has been shown not to work.
AndrewBCNZ 3 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ If children don't get the urge to follow authority occasionally, but most of the time they do, then why is bullying such a common, worldwide problem, and why does it happen consistently for years on end?????/!!!!!! According to your logic, incidents of bullying should only happen once in a blue moon, seeing as how children supposedly feel the need to follow authority MOST of the time!
What makes you so sure hard drugs wouldn't become acceptable? Even school kids can get cigarettes
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Jesus, you're really struggling with this whole concept, I've explained this before and can't be bothered doing it again. Suffice to say, the willingness of children to accept a supernatural explanation does not make that explanation correct.
Even school kids can get marijuana as well, from what I've heard it's even easier than to buy cigarettes and alcohol because the prohibition of marijuana means that it comes from people who don't care who buys it.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 ;*) I understand everything because us religious people have superior minds to you atheists. ;*) You're just trying to save face because you have no counter-argument, and are frustrated because there's a viable retort against this argument, no matter how you try to spin it!!!!!!!!!!!! ;*) If this was a game of chess, your king would essentially be trapped between the other sides queen and rook!!!!!!!!! ;*)
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ Does the willingness of you self-proclaimed intellectual giant atheists to accept Stephen Dorking Hawking's ramblings about the universe "as fact" make them correct??????!!!!!! That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant stance to have, and is but another reason why people generally detest you fanatical atheists!!!!!!!
The prohibition of weed means that people will be afraid to sell it, unlike people who sell cigarettes, and I never saw anyone smoking weed at high school!!!! ;*O
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Superior minds? SOMEBODY hasn't seen the statistics on the correlation between education and secularism (of course that doesn't show intellectual superiority, but it does suggest your claim to be absurd and arrogant). Alright, I'll try once more. If a parent tells a child something as "fact" the child will believe it. That's my point.
I don't accept anybody's "ramblings" as fact, and am uncertain about theoretical physics, seeing it simply as our best guess at the moment.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;*) I find it funny how you claim children's opinions "don't matter" seeing as how you claim they're more inclined to believe everything they're told, and yet you consider it to be a good indicator of someone's intelligence if they're able to remember everything they're told at school????????!!!! We've just witnessed yet another incident where an atheist contradicts himself!!! ;*( If your rhetoric didn't change all the time, people might actually take you seriously.
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST It's one thing to remember things that have been explained to them at school, especially if evidence is provided with it. It's another to simply believe something your parents tell you as fact, whether it's Santa, the tooth fairy or God. The point is, whether or not children (or anybody without evidence) believe in something is hardly overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure when I said anything about memory being an indicator of intelligence as I don't believe that, but sure.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ The fact that you immediately mentioned education as a determining factor of one's intelligence after I said religious people are mentally superior means that you do subconsciously believe one's education reveals their intelligence! ;*) What's the matter, aren't you willing to stand by the words that come out of your big mouth?! ;*)
Evidence is highly subjective!!!! I could tell you that the fact that our lost teeth mysteriously disappear from under our cushions is proof of the...
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST If you look at my earlier comment, you'll see I specifically said it doesn't necessarily show intelligence but does suggest that your absurd claim is laughable.
What's the matter? Aren't you willing to read what I say without twisting it? =P
The EVIDENCE in that example is that the tooth disappears from under the pillow. The mention of the tooth fairy is the theory. It would be just as easy to say that a tiny wormhole opens and sucks the tooth into it. Both are equally valid...
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ ...theories. Thus, more evidence is needed. In this case that evidence comes in the form of a parent admitting to playing the part of the tooth fairy. This is how the scientific method works.
Belief in the tooth fairy is just a nice game for kids, and Santa provides a premise to swap gifts, also good for kids. Belief in God teaches kids to externalise blame and to simplify the world into black and white. Any moral lessons could be taught equally well without religious involvement.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ How does belief in God teach children to blame things on others, when Christian doctrine is all about encouraging people to be open about things they've done wrong, and to confess, so that guilt won't weigh heavily on the throughout life?????/!!!!!!!!! That's a very good thing, and to be unwilling praise religion for that shows how ungrateful you are!!!!!!!
Nothing simplifies the world like science, which explains the predictable, and denies the existence of the unpredictable.
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ You can't say that education doesn't indicate one's intelligence, and yet still use it as a desperate attempt to insinuate that my flawless logic might in any way be flawed!!!!! ;*)
The idea of the tooth fairy has been believed for much longer than the idea of wormholes sucking teeth into them, and seeing as how our parents are older and wiser than us, it means we definitely shouldn't rule out the possibility of the tooth fairy taking away our lost teeth at night. ;*D
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ Tooth fairy's existence. ;*D You can't deny it, because you've never been awake at the time your missing tooth has been taken from under your pillow. Also, belief in the tooth fairy, Santa and God helps children to see that giving is such a great thing to do!!!!!! ;*D By arguing against those things, you're essentially encouraging children to become selfish and mean-spirited.
However, you believe that scientists have evidence to support their lofty claims even though they keep..
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST The only effect of the prohibition on marijuana sale or use at high school is that it's done more subtly but no less. I knew more people at high school who smoked weed than tobacco, although those who smoked tobacco did it more frequently because, unlike weed, it's chemically addictive.
I'd say it was more arrogant to assume that what you had been told without being given reason to be true and all others' beliefs false than to decide what to believe based on evidence.IJS.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ A drug can't proliferate if it's only taken in a clandestine manner!!!!! If lots of people are doing it, then it is no longer being taken subtly!!!! If you're taking a drug privately, you can't encourage all your friends and acquaintances to take it!!!! That defies the point of subtle drug use, because someone's bound to grass you up!!!!!
You're in no position to accuse me of being arrogant when you reject religion out of hand, and display obvious bias towards atheism and science!
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet the statistics tell a different story. 540,000 New Zealand adults have smoked marijuana over the past year. Clearly prohibition is working brilliantly.
I reserve the right to reject out of hand anything for which there is no evidence other than a few people declaring it to be true (no reason given). That's not arrogance, that's common sense. I don't think it counts as a bias if it's just relying on facts (i.e. science)
But sure, I suppose believing fairy tales works too.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ All their so-called "evidence" locked away in their labs where no one can ever see it. Face facts, you're not arguing from a standpoint of logic, you're arguing from a biased perspective, and that's because you're a stereotypical immoral atheist who wants to drag down people who are morally-superior you!!!!
540,000 people out of the millions who live in NZ smoke marijuana? That's hardly epidemic proportions. More people smoke cigarettes!!!!!!
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well that's about a 7th of the total population of the country. If you add to that number teenagers who smoke it and subtract children from the total population, the portion of the population who smoke it DOES reach epidemic proportions. And it's no wonder more people smoke tobacco, it's addictive and has been a major part of society for much longer.
Actually, this evidence is published in journals describing experiments and results which anybody could repeat for themselves.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ In order in order for a problem to reach epidemic proportions, it has to affect MOST people, if not everyone!!!!!!!! Just because a percentage of a population is weaker-willed, and needs drugs as a crutch to get by in life, that doesn't mean it's going to affect everyone, and bring everyone down to that level!!!
Weed is addictive. People will argue vehemently for their right to smoke weed, and that's because weed has a strong grip on them, and they can't give it up!!!!! ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 2 weeks ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Alright, so I used the word "epidemic" as a hyperbole. Scandal.
The point is that outlawing weed has not really made it more difficult to acquire, and many will attest to it being easier for kids to buy weed than alcohol. The only real effect of the ban has been the rise in organised crime. A better response would be to regulate it and tax it like mad to make it unaffordable.
Weed isn't chemically addictive like tobacco and therefore is much easier to quit.
AndrewBCNZ 2 weeks ago
@AndrewBCNZ Thanks!!!!!!! ;*D Outlawing weed means that dealers have to operate in secret, and are only able to sell to a few!!!!! Whereas if everyday shops were able to sell weed, then they could sell it to MANY people!!!!!!!!!! ;*( Don't forget that people who do recreational drugs are often reliant on their friends to put them in touch with dealers, and those of us who were bullied have no friends!!!!!!! ;*( Oh1!!!!!!!!!! It's hard to debate when you've only had 6 hours sleep!!!!!! ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet students still find it easier to get hold of than alcohol! That suggests that despite the "underground" nature (most people are actually pretty open about it anyway- in NZ at least) it's still able to become pretty widespead. Anyway, this thread's gone off on a BIT of a tangent.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ If so, the police would easily arrest them all, and get to look like major heroes!!!!! There I don't buy it!!!!!! ;*O
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet it's true, the police can't arrest them unless they catch them in possession of it, just talking about it isn't enough. Besides, society's so relaxed about it that the police wouldn't look like heroes, in fact it could even be bad or public relations. Somewhere around 70% of the adult population has tried it at some point in their lives.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ People trying drugs doesn't mean that they advocate them!!!! Lots of people have bad experiences with them, and lots of people don't see what the fuss is about!!!! ;*) Plus, most well-meaning parents don't want their kids to end up doing drugs because in lots of cases, drug use is the beginning of the end for people!!!!!!! ;*( The police would never look like villains for cracking down on drugs!!!!!! Drugs are, and always will be a crutch, just like atheism!!!!!! ;*)
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Ok, first of all, NOT believing in fairy-tales is not a crutch.
Secondly, the police don't look bad for cracking down on hard drugs but most NZers just don't see the big deal about occasional marijuana use, just as people aren't all that concerned about smoking or drinking in moderation- it's a bad habit but not a big deal in their minds. Either way, the effect of prohibition, in NZ at least, is deregulation and organised crime. People who want weed can still get it easily.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Atheism opens a pandora's box of immorality for all its believers. Atheism is a crutch because it justifies immoral behaviour and discrimination.
Weed is often a gateway drug to harder that drugs that can seriously harm people!!! ;*( People who do weed have to be in touch with criminals who deal it, and these criminals will often have hard drugs as well!!!! ;*( People who believe weed is "doing them good" won't be afraid of experimenting with harder drugs, and that's the end. ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Atheism does no such thing, it just forces people to consider their morals for their own and removes the excuse religion provides for bigotry and immorality (homophobia, racism etc).
That's right, weed has to be bought from criminals who also sell hard drugs. If it was legal it wouldn't have to be bought from criminals and this connection would be broken. The fact is weed is nowhere near as bad for you as other drugs (although still unhealthy) and should be treated appropriately
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Atheism condones murder in the form of abortion, promotes torturous experimentation on animals in the name of progress, endorses the production of weapons of mass destruction and war, and encourages discrimination towards those with differing belief systems. Atheism also doesn't do any good whatsoever, unlike religion.
If weed was legalised, it'd only be a matter of time before people argued for the legalisation of harder drugs. It's a slippery slope, and the end of humanity.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Atheism does none of the above. I'm an atheist as well as a pacifist and a vegetarian. I think as soon as a fetus has a nervous system capable of suffering it's a terrible thing to destroy it and I see all religions as equal (although of course extremism is worse than moderation), I also have huge respect for many religious people, if not for their religion.
Atheism promotes treating humans as humans regardless of beliefs or race, unlike many religion.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ *religions.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ You're only a pacifist when it comes to other atheists! ;*) I remember how you started this conversation, when you attempted to harm my self-esteem by just laughing at what I said, as if to imply, "I can't believe you were dumb enough to say that." Plus, I don't see any hard evidence of anything you do to help the world, but there's COPIOUS evidence available which proves you atheists to be aggressive, adversarial, and hostile to all who are different to you!!!! ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST I laughed because what you said was laughable. That isn't violence and has nothing to do with pacifism.
Oh, you're right, I forgot again about all those atheist crusades and acts of terrorism targeting non-atheists just for being religious. My bad.
Also, what evidence?
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Actually, when you say you're a pacifist, that suggests that you're against all forms of confrontation, even the non-violent ones that happen on Internet discussion forums!!!!!!!!! All forms of confrontation, even non-violent ones which primarily involve vocal discourse can lead to feelings of ill-will and resentment, and these are just the first steps towards a violent altercation. It's clear you've harboured ill-will towards me from the start, and what savage, drug-advocating...
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Definition: Pacifist- someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes. Just saying...
I harbour no ill-will towards you or any other religious person, I believe people are ultimately good and have to potential to be intelligent and generous- I dislike your worldview because it makes that potential harder to reach. People are distinct from their world-views and thus I can hate religion while having no problem with religious people.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ My world view is one of the reasons why I'm happier in life than you are. If you were happy in life, you wouldn't spend your days on YouTube, watching and commenting on atheist videos that are made as an attempt to attack, and bring down religious people to your level of depravity. Most religious people scarcely acknowledge you atheists, and that's because they know they're better than you, and that you aren't worthy of any of their time.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST The legalisation of marijuana is no more a slippery slope than the legalisation of alcohol was in the 1930s. It is not the end of humanity, policies on each drug should be judged on the merits of each policy as it relates to each drug. That isn't a slippery slope, that's just reasonable.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ All hard drugs were created in recent decades for medical purposes!!!!! That's why people were still discovering new side-effects from taking them recreationally even in the eighties and nineties!!!!!!!!! ;*( If they were as old as you say they are, all of their side-effects would've been well documented from as early as the fifties!!!!!! ;*O And the reason alcohol was legalised is because the makers of it managed to convince everyone that it was a "good, harmless" thing, and it was
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Oh, and really? The "end of humanity"? Calm down, it might not be good but all those drugs have been legal before and humanity survived. There's no need to be a prima donna.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Only later that alcohol was discovered to heighten aggression, and make people less wary of the consequences of starting fights!!!!!!! ;*( If anything, the legalisation of alcohol is a lesson that teaches us why other drugs shouldn't be legalised!!!!!!!!! ;*O
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Except that the prohibition of alcohol has already been tried and shown to fail (disastrously- before prohibition organised crime was rare and weak).
That was the real reason for the lifting of prohibition after only a decade.
The negative health effects of alcohol have been known for centuries, actually, and the discovery dates of hard drugs are irrelevant to the idea of judging policy based on its own merit as it relates to each drug... not sure what you were getting at there.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Atheist wouldn't resent me for calling him out on his decadent, unwholesome lifestyle? You people want to feel like you're doing the right thing by living so destructively, which is why you're so hostile towards people who show you the error of your ways!
Just because a small percentage of societies will always need the crutch of drugs, that doesn't mean the law should be built around them. It should be discouraged. Non-drug users aren't going to take them because it's forbidden.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST But that very viewpoint has been shown, repeatedly, not to work, and just legalising a drug isn't the same as encouraging it. It should certainly be discouraged, just as alcohol and tobacco are discouraged (except more- these are under-regulated) through heavy taxes and regulations.
What decadent, unwholesome lifestyle? I don't pray or go to church, aside from that, I don't imagine my lifestyle's all that different from a religious person, unless they're into self-flagellation.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Just because lengths taken to prevent drug use don't have the desired success rate, that doesn't mean we should forget about discouraging them altogether. That's a quitter's way out, and encouraging people to quit when the going gets tough would be very bad for humanity. I should've guessed that you'd be in favour of that kind of thing though, seeing as how it takes a quitter to make an atheist. After all, to be an atheist, you have to quit in your efforts to find God.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST It's not that these measures haven't had much success (although they haven't), if they had only a small impact on reducing drug use they would be worthwhile were it not for the side-effects of these policies (a massive growth in organised crime) which are extremely destructive to society.
It's not a matter of quitting in efforts to find God, it's a matter of appreciating the universe without diminishing it with cheap fairytales.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ There's always going to be people who break the law for some reason or other. If they couldn't profit from breaking drug laws, they'd profit from breaking some other law. They wouldn't suddenly become upstanding citizens and forget about all the other illicit ways of making money!!!!! ;*(
Nothing cheapens the universe like your belief that nothing exists other than that which science can predict. That horrendously oversimplifies everything that we know and perceive around us.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST But the 1920s showed us very clearly that the prohibition approach did nothing but give those criminals money and, by extension, power, causing more to join them in search of the money to be had dealing in underground unregulated substances.
Actually, nothing cheapens the universe more than the view that, if we don't understand something, it's supernatural and there's no point in trying to learn more about it. That's a cop-out and what you would call a "quitter's way out."
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ When drugs are prohibited and more people deal them, that's when you worsen the punishments for people who get caught dealing them, and eventually the dealers will decide that it isn't worth the risk of dealing, when they could easily make an honest living without always having to look over their shoulder!!!!!! ;*D
God and his influence on the universe is FAR HARDER to understand than the minor parts of the universe that can be predicted. Face facts, you're taking the easy route.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST And yet even when the death penalty is applied to drug offences, the reward has historically proven great enough that people continue to deal and gangs continue to grow. That's a nice idea, but one that's been shown not to work, I'm afraid.
But with explanations relying on God or gods, investigation rarely extends beyond "it's part of a divine plan." I'm not seeing how that's harder than investigating the truth. Besides, the truth has nothing to do with ease of understanding.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Life imprisonment is worse than the death penalty. No drug dealer in the right mind would risk death or life imprisonment by dealing drugs when there are other ways to make money!!!!!!! Logic disagrees with you.
As an atheist, you can't begin to grasp just how complex God's divine plan is, seeing as how it extends to all lifeforms in the universe. If the world's greatest religious thinkers find it incredibly hard to explain God's plan, then I don't think your opinion has any merit
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well, the same applies with life imprisonment.
Yet drug dealing continues to grow even with harsh punishments, people aren't always logical, and those who are willing to kill for money- as these people are- frequently aren't "in their right minds."
The complexity or otherwise of this plan has nothing to do with whether it really exists. As I'm not seeing any reason to believe it does, I'll accept the null hypothesis that it doesn't.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ You're telling me that people who covertly deal drugs, and hire gun-toting bodyguards to protect them, aren't operating logically????????!!!!!!! If they weren't operating logically, they wouldn't pay for bodyguards when they could just spend that money on themselves, and they wouldn't hide in the shadows, only selling drugs to people who actively sought them. Instead they'd be all over the streets, trying to get as much money as possible before being locked up.
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Not acting logically doesn't mean they're acting like complete morons, there is a middle ground there.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ I've only ever heard of people being either logical or illogical, not somewhere in between!!!!! ;*O
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBCNZ I've only ever heard of people being either logical or illogical, not somewhere in between!!!!! ;*O
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YYYYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YYYYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBCNZ But lets see if we can at least get this debate to 100 replies!!!! ;*D Then we can all feel proud when we're having our tea break!!!!! ;*D YEAHHHHHHHHH!!!! ;*D
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Here's another post for the cause!!!!! -.-
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBCNZ Here's another post for the cause!!!!! -.-
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBCNZ Here's another post for the cause!!!! -.-
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Hmmm...for all the accusations of harbouring ill-will towards you, you seem awfully aggressive an intolerant of people who refuse to believe in something without reason. Repeatedly calling people of different opinions stupid doesn't help your case. You'd be better off making reasonable arguments which suggest they're mislead. I haven't seen you do much of that.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ Like a typical atheist, you're greatly underestimating people, and oversimplifying things in order to make your own argument sound more plausible. For all your talk about believing "everyone is capable of greatness" when trying to convince me that atheists are good people, you sure contradict yourself a lot!!! ;*(
Show me where I've called you stupid, or where I've displayed hostility towards you without first being provoked!!!
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STEJTHEGREATEST "You atheists are a direct threat to humanity's intellectual freedom, and I intend to stop you all."
"Atheists are very detrimental to humanity in other ways, too."
" I understand everything because us religious people have superior minds to you atheists"
"you're a stereotypical immoral atheist who wants to drag down people who are morally-superior you"
"... proves you atheists to be aggressive, adversarial, and hostile to all who are different to you"
I could go on.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST I don't see the contradiction in saying that all people could be great and lead happy lives and saying that atheists are good people. Those two points are just about completely irrelevant to each other. Study after study has shown that there is no correlation between morality and religiousity (no matter how many times religious people claim otherwise) except for a slight negative one because religion can twist people's morality to being unenlightened and suited to the dark ages.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ You claim that all people can be great, but then claim that all the conniving, wealthy drug dealers in the world are devoid of logic in order to suit your argument!!! I pointed out the obvious fallacy in that comment!!!!! ;*D
Anyone in a survey can lie and say that they're an upstanding person of strong morals when questioned. You do it all the time, but then you forget about that and say things which shine bright light on your morally-challenged nature!!!!!! ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 1 week ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST CAN be great. Not ARE great. I just think that people who choose to make a living out of violence and peddling poison aren't quite thinking straight- not "devoid of logic": the world doesn't exist in simple black and white. There is no fallacy.
Studies on this kind of thing don't necessarily mean surveys...they often look at criminal records, psychological tests of generosity and/or cruelty and so on. Also, I'd just like to point out YET ANOTHER unprovoked attack on my morality.
AndrewBCNZ 1 week ago
@AndrewBCNZ By saying that drug dealers who make a living out of violence and peddling poison aren't quite thinking straight, you also have to admit that the likes of Einstein (who was essential to the development of nuclear weapons) and Stephen Hawking (who baselessly attacks the credibility of religious people for no reason other than his innate bitterness) also aren't thinking straight. They're just as bad as drug dealers.
Also, why would scientists be given access to criminal records...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Einstein didn't develop nuclear weapons for that purpose, he was simply trying to expand our understanding of the universe and that knowledge was misused. I can't speak for Steven Hawking but attacks on religion are certainly not unprovoked and unnecessary. They're justified and essential for any hope of escape from dark-age morality and denial of clear fact in favour of dogma.
Social scientists use those resources to research trends in criminality to help governments.
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ L, do you think I'm completely naive to expect me to believe that Einstein's "innocent" work to expand understanding of the universe could also be used as weapons as mass destruction to...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Coerce other countries into giving up their free will, and letting us plunder them? Also, Einstein's work did next to nothing to heighten our understanding of the universe. That's why...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Lots and lots is still unknown by scientists, but known to experienced practitioners of religion.
If you want to call my factual statements on your immorality, "bigotry towards...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ And detailed accounts of the behaviour of lots of people just for the sake of a study they want to carry out on a casual whim? All of us have the right to forbid our personal information from being distributed to anyone who requests it, therefore I don't believe you.
What I said about your lack of morals was a factual statement, based on a wealth of evidence from all your posts in this thread. It wasn't an attack.
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST The fact is, governments do keep track of criminal records and allow statisticians and advisors to use these resources.
I have extremely strong morals, actually, it clearly wasn't based on "a wealth of evidence" or else it wouldn't be so inaccurate. It clearly was an attack based on anti-atheist bigotry. Good job.
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Atheists" then you have to also admit that your baseless slander against religion, and religious people is also biggoted, and outstandingly hypocritical. What's this, atheist being...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Ok, a lot of absurd points raised there.
Einstein expanded our understanding of the atom and how it worked. This was his aim. That this knowledge was used to create weapons capable of ending life on earth was a terrible side-effect but one which he can hardly be held accountable for as he didn't plan for it to happen. At worst he could be accused of being naive.
Einstein's work did expand our understanding of the universe, it didn't complete it of course but it made...
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Einstein had to be aware of the possibility of his work being abused to create WMDs. No one can be that dumb. Also, you're forgetting the critical fact that Einstein recommended that the American government pursue the development of nuclear weapons. Therefore, not only was he NOT against his work being used for nukes, but he ENCOURAGED IT. He was a butcher, there's no escaping that fact.
How can you say that the claims made by religious men in regards to understanding the...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST...huge strides. Nobody fully understands everything about the universe, of course, but that includes religious people. I'm afraid just declaring something to be true based on faith doesn't count as understanding the universe. It counts as making up stories.
I never made "baseless slander against religion," I am justifiably critical of it. Everything I say about it is based on fact- a key difference and what makes my criticisms un-hypocritical.
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ The universe are false, but blindly believe Einstein's theories despite not being able to study atoms and molecules up close, like Einstein and the scientific elites could? Face facts, you believe them because they've conned you into believing that they're smarter than you, and that their opinions hold more authority.
How is your criticism of religion justifiable? You haven't brought any proof that sticks against religion. All you've brought is overstated opinions and blind hate.
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST I didn't know that Einstein had encouraged the development of nuclear weapons, that's interesting, I suppose being a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany at the time he can't be blamed for wanting to pursue any possible means of helping the Allies in the war.
I don't "blindly believe" anything, actually. I see most of Einstein's theories as essentially the best guess we've got and that's based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the evidence. Because my understanding's limited...
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ The Allies didn't need nukes to win WW2. Germany had surrendered by the time they were ready to use, which means that the surviving Japanese army faced the prospect of a "5 countries against one" war against the UK, USA, Russia, France and Canada. Any who says we needed to nuke Japan to win the war is wrong. That was just a matter of Einstein wanting to rule the planet through fear and coercion.
Why is Einstein's theory "the best guess we've got" and not the religious...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...I don't accept it fully, although friends I have who HAVE studied some of the evidence assure me that it's pretty strong so I accept it over any alternative theories while still being open to new theories in the future if they have stronger evidence behind them.
Alright: religion is based on nothing but old myths and blind faith- not evidence or reason. But not only is there no reason to accept it as truth, but it enforces an archaic and often bigoted moral code and blocks...
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Explanation, which I add, is believed by more people due to its greater credibility, and has been an established answer for much longer than Einstein's theory? Einstein's theory is an upstart theory, and the only people who put any stock in it, are the scientists who make money from it, and a small percentage of non-scientist atheists whom are easily led into believing outlandish claims, due to their bitterness towards those with strongly-developed faith.
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ ...reasonable scientific progress and research wherever that research disagrees with religion's blind dogma.
That's a small start of my justification for criticising religion. I could go on but that'd be a spectacular waste of time. Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" presents some compelling arguments which I largely agree with as well.
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ What makes your friends' opinions, and Richard Dawkins' opinions so valid in this matter? For all we know, your friends could have blindly believed everything the nearby scientists told them the evidence proved, without really taking the time to scrutinise it thoroughly. As for Dawkins, he's an evolutionary biologist who is not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to make arguments regarding God's existence. He knows nothing about the universe, it's nature, or creation, and...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Dawkins is qualified to discuss and criticise religion simply by virtue of him being an intelligent and well-informed person who has put a lot of time into considering the subject.
I'm glad the subject has turned to your absurd denial of evolution because I'm far better informed on this topic than I am on the physics around Einstein's theories.
Evolution is supported by EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence we've found in nature, from fossils to DNA to the very distribution of ...
AndrewBCNZ 6 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Dawkins isn't intelligent. There's vast logical holes in his rhetoric, and I've been able to point out fallacy after fallacy in every quote on religion I've ever seen him make. He isn't well-informed either, he's just memorised lots of information about Charlie Darwin's unproven evolutionary theory. You can say all that you want about it, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the world considers it a theory, rather than a law. By denying that, you're showing how out of...
STEJTHEGREATEST 6 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well to claim that Dawkins isn't intelligent is just absurd and doesn't credit any more of a response than that. He is well informed as he has been one of many researching the theory and finding more and more proof, as well as observing the evidence found by other researchers. The reason evolution is called a theory isn't difficult to grasp. Any hypothesis is a theory until it is mathematically proven. However, most theories can't be proven in this way by their very nature...
AndrewBCNZ 4 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Wait a minute, you're arguing that Dawkins is intelligent and knowledgable, when one of his arguments is that "we're all atheists" seeing as how he believes all religious people don't believe in certain gods? If anything, that only highlights his poor education, and limited grasp on the facts of life, seeing as how in the early pages of the Bible, God alludes to the existence of other gods, but advises us not to worship them. Therefore, religious people believe in ALL the gods.
STEJTHEGREATEST 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Do you honestly believe in Ra, Zeus, Odin and Shiva etc? If you believe in all gods, you're one of very few, and as I understood it, the Bible calls other gods false- meaning they DON'T exist.
His point is just that if you choose one religion, you are in effect rejecting the rest. He might have been better off saying "we're all heathens" but the point is valid.
Also, you seem to be confusing "religious people" for "Christians" there- careful of that.
I really don't...
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ I'm open-minded to the existence of all gods. Anyone with strong faith, who operates on a higher level of mental perception is open-minded towards all gods. By calling all other gods false, the Bible is claiming that although they exist, their claims towards outright divinity, righteousness and to the throne of ultimate godhood, are false. Only the main God, the father of Jesus, and creator of the universe is the holder of the throne of ultimate godhood. The others are lesser gods.
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ If Ricky Dorkins makes such shocking errors in judgment, as to lose sight of the separate definitions on words like atheists and heathens, then why should he be trusted on such a profound subject as the origin and creation of all life? It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that Dorkins is a highly fallible, horribly irrational person, and it seems like my theory of him being a special ed student is strengthening on a daily basis. I bet Dorkins is comforted by the colour yellow.
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...know what you're talking about there, as I've said, the evidence for evolution is perfectly available for us all in journals, books, museums and all around us.
The scientific community is not prone to accepting groundbreaking theories without copious evidence, and they have unanimously (at least among those who are internationally respected) accepted evolution, even religious scientists only haves lightly different views on it such as adding a point of evolution for the soul.
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Internationally respected scientists are only respected by about a hundred or so people, and all of those are other scientists whom have been mentally conditioned to think inside the same intellectual prison as other scientists. Scientists whom are only respected by other fruitcake scientists, whom are totally out of touch with society, don't convince me that they're authoritative sources on these matters at all. I can only begin to respect someone if they're respected by SANE people
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ The fact that Dawkins has spent lots of time researching a lie doesn't make him well-informed or intelligent, it makes him gullible and easily-led.
It's funny how Dawkins and the small percentage of paranoid, irrational atheists that follow him claims he's finding mountains of evidence, and yet these mountains are still so well hidden! I didn't know invisible mountains existed! It's obvious to me that Dawkins never outgrew the lying phase that children go through.
STEJTHEGREATEST 4 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ If most theories can't be proven without doubt, then it's irrational to attack a belief system which promotes good will and tolerance, and endorse an outlandish theory that can't be proven, like evolution.
The round Earth theory isn't impossible to prove. People have flown in one direction and ended up back in the country from where they started. People have seen with their own eyes from space, and from orbit that the world is round. To say something obvious can't be proven...
STEJTHEGREATEST 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST And people have seen animals evolve, over generations, into distinct populations. People have also seen the remains of intermediate stages of evolution between species, others have seen the genetic evidence that all life is descended from a common ancestor. These are all very convincing "proofs" but they aren't mathematical proofs, just as the round earth can't be mathematically proven by flying around it, it's just such strong evidence that it can be treated as proof.
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ It seems you don't have a very strong grasp on the definition of evolution. Evolution is defined as happening over tens of thousands of years. There can't possibly be any living witnesses who have seen animals physically change over generations. Animals that live in community-like groups don't break away from each other, either. God created us so that we're all dependent on each other. In order to feel good and happy, we have to earn the love and respect of people and women around...
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Us. No one who is an outcast is ever truly happy. That's why animals will never, ever break away from the main group, as that means solitude, loneliness, emptiness and no success with the opposite sex. No one is ever truly independent. As shocking as it might seem, I'm dependent on people like you, because you make me look like a genius, and you're dependent on me for your education, and frequent doses of sanity.
Genetic evidence isn't something that can be seen with the naked...
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Eye in everyday, UNMANIPULATED conditions. The "genetic evidence" witnessed by scientists is in unnatural conditions created by laboratory environments, and visible only through machinery designed by them, produced in such a way to show the results which they so desire.
Evolution is nowhere near proven. Even if it was proven (ONLY beyond reasonable doubt) it would still be considered a law by everyone, rather than a theory.
Your fallacious belief that life isn't what we make...
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ I heard that Ricky Dorkins was a learning support student at school, and that scientists only accepted him because they don't want children with special needs to give up on education.
STEJTHEGREATEST 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...and are instead tested by being constantly tested against new evidence. Evolution isn't the only theory like that. Heliocentricity (that the sun is at the center of the solar system) is still a theory. So is the round Earth theory. But these are still undeniably true. So is evolution.
Scientists don't lie about the ages of fossils- they couldn't because their research is available for all to see and they would be caught. Liberty University has a strict dogmatic message...
AndrewBCNZ 4 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ For certain because it can't be proven mathematically is ridiculous, and a cop-out. You're using it as a crutch because you know evolution is FAR from proven, and you're trying to downplay this fact, and make it seem as if only a trivial technicality stands between evolution being proven. Evolution will only be proven if most of the world accepts evolution, and rejects the idea of God's existence. In a world of enlightened religious people, a destructive parasite like Dawkins is...
STEJTHEGREATEST 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST As explained previously, I wasn't saying that. My point was that evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt as has the heliocentric model of the solar system and the round earth have been.
Also, the truth isn't based on democracy, I'm afraid, and repeatedly claiming something to be true doesn't make it so.
Besides, MOST people, at least in the West, DO accept evolution as undeniable fact, AND believe in God, they just aren't fundamentalists (a fashion only started...
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Make it illustrates the reason why atheism and success are polar opposites. The most successful people strongly believe that perception is reality, which is why if they believe they can do a thing, THEY WILL DO IT. If they believe something is true, then it becomes true. The fact that God created this universe so that it delivers to people the things that they ask for is but further proof of how much He loves us all, and wants the best for all of us.
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...in the Victorian era) and therefore just believe in evolution guided by God- a cop-out from reality, certainly, but closer to the truth than treating an old myth has historical fact.
No, the owners of the fossil (often the public- in museums) simply don't want amateurs to damage valuable fossils in an attempt to carry out their own research which they are unqualified to do. They only want experts who know what they're looking at.
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Pitied, and looked down upon as a fool for being out of touch with society.
It doesn't matter if or not the research of evolutionists is available for all to see. You've admitted yourself that in order to double check the ages of fossils, people have to first be accepted by the owners of the fossils, by becoming qualified in evolutionary biology and the like. In other words, the owners of the fossils want people to think inside the same box that they do before they'll allow it.
STEJTHEGREATEST 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...to push and therefore ignores any evidence that doesn't suit it. This is why respected scientists (including religious ones) haven't changed their views in light of this research- it wasn't accurate. In order to come up with such conclusions you need to completely discount the entire idea of Carbon dating- an accurate measure of age- which is just ridiculous. It's basically recognising that some evidence is inconvenient so just pretending it doesn't exist.
He has...
AndrewBCNZ 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...familiarised himself with the "evidence" behind religious claims.
The evidence for evolution isn't that there is life everywhere but that it's distributed the way it is. Why did every single marsupial and monotreme decide to wander from Mount Ararat to Australia with none stopping along the way? Not to mention how? That's just one example, but the distribution of species on the planet is EXACTLY as would be expected according to evolution.
If you want to test the age of...
AndrewBCNZ 4 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST ...fossils at museums you can. But first you need to become qualified and go through the same processes that scientists go to- study evolutionary biology and radio-carbon dating at university, gain field experience and apply for a grant to carry out the research. Scientists aren't some elite who have a monopoly over facts. They're just people who have spent their time studying a particular scientific field and are qualified to draw conclusions from their observations.
AndrewBCNZ 4 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ Tick tock, tick tock. I'm growing a beard, waiting here!!!!!!!!! Stop masturbating to the fat slob Christopher Hitchens, who failed miserably at taking care of himself, and get back on here so that I can prove more of your arguments wrong, and feel intelligent at your expense.
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Well I'm glad you can fool yourself into thinking you're making reasonable arguments, I suppose, as long as nobody else is fooled it should at least be good for your self-esteem.
And yeah, Hitchens did lead an extremely unhealthy lifestyle but it's still extremely distasteful to attack the recently dead.
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ I bet Chrissy Hitchens had to go down on his knees in Heaven, and apologise for all his transgressions as an atheist here on Earth, and beg for Jesus to lead him, as his Lord. In fact, Chris is probably carrying one of Jesus' bags now, even as we speak. Lets just hope there's no food in that bag, otherwise Jesus might have to do without lunch. ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Hitchens was a chain smoker and a heavy drinker- overeating was not a particular problem so there's no need for crude insults in THAT direction.
As far as world hunger goes we're better of carrying out scientific research into higher-yield crops and preventing desertification. Also putting charity money towards food and shelter instead of handing out old books could help, just saying.
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ I bet your hero, Chrissy Hitchens is cheering me on in this argument from Heaven, now that he knows the truth. I bet he's shaking his head in dismay at your messages and thinking, "I can't believe I used to be like that." ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ And I bet you wish this argument could go back to us both only posting one message at a time to each other, don't you? It must be hard having to think of so many lies everytime you come here. I take it that's why it takes you at least 24 hours to respond, lol!!!!!!! ;*(
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@STEJTHEGREATEST Actually it's been taking this long to respond because I've been doing things other than posting on youtube...
1 message at a time would be easier, but when there's more to be said not much can be done.
Well, as Pascal's Wager pointed out, if you're right then you can laugh at my misfortune, whereas if I'm right I get no bragging rights because after death we're simply gone. However, that argument is flawed enough not to count as an argument against atheism anyway, just bad luck
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STEJTHEGREATEST Actually it's been taking this long to respond because I've been doing things other than posting on youtube...
1 message at a time would be easier, but when there's more to be said not much can be done.
Well, as Pascal's Wager pointed out, if you're right then you can laugh at my misfortune, whereas if I'm right I get no bragging rights because after death we're simply gone. However, that argument is flawed enough not to count as an argument against atheism anyway, just bad luck
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STEJTHEGREATEST Actually it's been taking this long to respond because I've been doing things other than posting on youtube...
1 message at a time would be easier, but when there's more to be said not much can be done.
Well, as Pascal's Wager pointed out, if you're right then you can laugh at my misfortune, whereas if I'm right I get no bragging rights because after death we're simply gone. However, that argument is flawed enough not to count as an argument against atheism anyway, just bad luck
AndrewBCNZ 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ And by the way, this thread has now got 155 replies!!!!!! That's a noteworthy number, because that's the most points Steve Yzerman the hockey player ever scored in a season!!!!!!!!! ;*D I love him!!!!!!!! ;*P
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago
@AndrewBCNZ How do you put an end to world hunger? Send Chrissy Hitchen's body to a third world country so they can cook him for a lifetime's supply of... I was going to say meat, but in reality it'd be a lifetime's supply of lard. Still, I guess eating lard is better than eating nothing. After all, I heard that George Foreman was raised on lard butties back in the day, and look how he turned out!!!!!!! It seems that Chrissy Hitchen's is going to be useful after all!!!!!!!
STEJTHEGREATEST 3 days ago