The evolutionary ladders demonstrated by fossiles contradict the methaphysical claims of the existence of a soul, when, in which evolutionary step did we acquire a soul? Skeptical atheists know the answer for this question, we didn't, ever. There is no soul.
@korvxxxkorvxxx In the flood scenario, they would have been wiped out. If a rain storm described in the bible happened, it would have been a massive, sudden introduction of salt water from nowhere. It would have blended with salt water and ruined the salt water/sweet water balance, it would have changed the temperature, the water pressure, etc., and most, if not all, aquatic life would die
@BigBurkhart Well, you should get paid. The job you guys do is incredible. There is no more important job(in my opinion), than to tell the truth of the universe and the earth. Today is way different than 20 or 30yrs ago, real info is on tap for anyone at any time. Sadly, bullshit is also. We need more people to stand up against their grandparents convenient beliefs and not be afraid to talk about it. You do great work, and deserve way more press and recognition than you get. and money
@freehling420 The entirety of this show is done on a volunteer basis, and while I've only just started working on the show a few months ago, I'm proud of the work I've done. I'm glad to go help every single week, and while doing this for a paycheck would be great, I'm happy helping out as much as I can now. It's really people like you who keep the show running, and all the support we get from viewers means a lot to everyone on the show.
Holy fuck! i feel like a dumb ass. im atheist and im looking at the comments below and there are some REALLY smart atheists. then again im only 14 lol
The reason evolution clashes with fundamentalists is because it flies in the face of their stupid insistence on interpreting Genesis LITERALLY. Not even the Orthodox Jews do that, and it's THEIR book!
@MrJoaquin1978 That's merely an explanatory video on one of the running hypotheses. Try going to the references part of the wikipedia page for it. I dunno about you, but I found more than I could sift through there.
"Do you have any verifying proof or evidence to make me want to believe you?"
"Well...your blah blah blah (translation: No, but because I don't fully grasp the concepts of scientific reasoning, my unintelligent mind wants to defend itself from being called 'wrong' or 'unsubstantial', so I'll just make an ad hominem or a straw man argument to dance around your inquistion, which would destroy my argument, if I were sensible."
Fuck Christ. Fuck god. Fuck the easter bunny. Fuck santa. Fuck Allah. Fuck Shiva. Fuck the "Virgin" Mother-(joeseph's a chump). Fuck Joseph Smith.Fuck L.Ron Hubbard. Fuck donny and Marrie. Fuck Mitt Romney. Fuck Pope Rattzinburger(Nazi Fuck).Fuck anyone who claims to believe but they don't, Fuck anyone that claims god is real, THEY ARE LYING, AND THEY WANT/NEED SOMETHING FROM YOU.
And fuck agnostics. Get off the fence you fucking pussies.
@MrJoaquin1978 Type into the searchbar "How Abiogenesis works" and look for a video by donexodus2. He was a christian at the time of the videos making, and he accepts the scientific explanation of abiogenesis. You fail.
Atheists ask for evidence that there is God...where is youre evidence that there is no God?..before you tell me God isnt real because there is no proof...show me proof He is not real.
@UnadvisableCloud Science so far has shown that every phonomena that we are able to observe in the physical world (Gravity, evolution, the functioning of body etc.) all have explanations and causes, that do not require god. There is no reason to assume that anything we see in nature, requires god to function. And before you say "But these things must have been created" I say "no". Just because the universe exists, doesn't mean that it had to have an creator.
@UnadvisableCloud It's really quite simple, why would i have to prove that something does NOT exist? By your definition anything that cannot be proven to NOT exist, is there for real? Do you see the logical fallacy there? If you truly believe what you just said that would then mean you have to believe in anything anyone could come up with, including all the old polytheistic gods of ancient greece, all the polytheistic hindu gods, how about a troll? Or a giant tea pot that orbits the earth?
@UnadvisableCloud It's not a person's job to prove something doesn't exist. So, if I walk up to you and say "There are little green men on Mars and they're planning to invade!" and you ask for me to "Prove it" should I retort with, "It's not my job to prove it, it's your job to prove that they don't exist."? Not at all, and I would not expect you to believe it unless I had proof.
@zdunichme you can phrase it in any way you want. What those claims imply, is the rejection of gods. The only neutral position in this quarrel, is "I dont know".
@eleminatus That's not true. If somebody claimed that there was a money in their ass, would you say "well, I don't know about that..."? Of course not, you would reject the claim because it's extremely unlikely that somebody fit or even put a monkey inside their ass. My analogy is actually more convincing than the whole god thing anyway. There is at least a physical chance that some weird guy put a monkey in their ass. God is just an abstract concept that varies person to person.
@MrCoolUS emm, I agree. There might have been a miscommunication. I was merely defining the position of a reply. Just like your analogy suggests, "I dont know" is the neutral reply (no matter the likelihood of such reply). "I believe" would be a positive reply and "I dont believe" would be a negative one. That was my only argument. I agree with the rest you say!
@eleminatus I don't believe is the neutral one actually.
There's "I believe x exists", the positive claim. There's "I don't believe x exists", the neutral claim, and there's "I believe x doesn't exist", the negative claim. Non-belief is the neutral, default position.
They're two different things, claims of knowledge and belief. There's gnostic and agnostic theism and atheism. Most atheists are agnostic atheists (don't claim to know there's no god, but don't believe there is).
@Fortune2point0 I could heavily argue the semantics here, but i completely agree with the argument you are making - disbelief is the default position.
@Fortune2point0 its not the definitions Im concerned about. Its the structure of your claim. Whats the difference between "I dont believe x exists" and "I believe x doesnt exist"? Thats the semantics issue I have. These both claims deal with belief. Or to be more precise, the absence of the belief. They essentially mean the same, so how do you distinguish between the two and even give them neutral and negative properties?
@eleminatus They are different things. One is the null position, it is just a lack of belief. The other one claims or asserts a belief that this thing doesn't exist. Because the latter is making a claim (that x doesn't exist), they require evidence.
@Fortune2point0 and "I dont believe x exists" isnt a claim? We agree, that its a default position, but by no means is it neutral. Just like the other two, it asserts its contextual position. A neutral claim would imply not taking sides. While all three of your examples are explicitly on one side or the other. Where is the neutrality in "I dont believe x exists"?
@eleminatus It's a claim of your belief but you're not making an assertion (that something exists or does not exist). Lack of belief is the null position, you're not claiming that you believe a god exists or does not exist.
@Fortune2point0 when one says "I dont believe x exists", of course he/she is making an assertion. A person clearly states, that he/she does not believe in the existence of x. How is that not an assertion?
@eleminatus They are asserting their lack of belief, they are not asserting that a god does or does not exist. Claiming "I believe a god exists" or "I believe a god does not exist" is different than the null, default position of "I do not believe a god exists".
@Fortune2point0 yeah, they both assert the lack of belief. But you still did not demonstrate how one of them is neutral, when they all clearly take a side in the hypothetical argument.
@eleminatus "I believe a god exists" asserts that there is a god. "I believe no god exists" asserts that there is no god. "I don't believe a god exists" makes no assertion. Everyone who has never heard of a god is of that position, they do not believe either way, they are not making a positive assertion of a god's existence.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. Maybe check out Iron Chariots, they probably have a better explanation.
@Fortune2point0 how can you say "I dont believe a god exists" makes no assertion? Its not a positive assertion, its a negative one. If a person, who was never exposed to the notion of god, is asked such question, "I dont know" is the neutral positio, since it goes neither way. With "I dont believe a god exists" you are expressing a disbelief - taking a negative position on an issue.
@eleminatus "I don't know" is lack of belief. They do not actively believe a god exists, therefore they do not believe a god exists. What aren't you getting?
@Fortune2point0 So here is how I see it - positive position, is the one, where you accept the existence of god; negative is the one, where you dont accept the existence of god (whether its theistic or gnostic approach). Neutral position, is the one that does not take any side - belief or disbelief. So the question is, what kind of position is truly neutral? In my opinion its "I dont know". It does not take sides and it deals with both, belief and knowledge.
@eleminatus The neutral position is the default position. Does someone who says "I don't know" believe that a god exists? No? Then they don't believe a god exists.
@Fortune2point0 he believes neither. Let me use a more practical question. Lets assume (since I dont know), that you are not aware of what parthenogenesis is. And I ask you "Do you believe parthenogenesis is possible"? By answering "I dont know", you display the position of uncertainty. Meaning you neither accept the claim nor decline it. You may want to find more information or read about it. But at the point of asking the question, you want to assume neutrality.
@Fortune2point0 no, you dont. If you say "I dont know" you pick neither - believe or dont believe. At the point of answering, you pick no side. You dont claim to believe and you dont claim not to believe.
@2Jax I've heard something similar. And I agree that proving something 100% one way or the other is impossible, except for in base logic and mathematics.
@Fortune2point0 Imagine 100,000 different speculations void of evidence that have these in common: 1: tomorrow, 2: the world will be destroyed. If there is 0.001% for each speculation there is 100% chance that 1 and 2 will happen. If you imagine 1,000,000,000 different speculations void of evidence that have 1 and 2 in common and if there is 0.0000001% chance for each then there is 100% chance that 1 and 2 will happen. Now imagine infinite with 1 and 2 in common.
@Fortune2point0 Im not saying that "I dont know" is a perfect and completely neutral response. It may be flawed. I simply do not agree with your proposed neutral position.
@eleminatus Rational thinking actually includes being neutral towards all ideas that haven't been proven or disproven, even when we don't know the answer.
@MrPianoJames I disagree. Not all ideas are equal after applying rational thinking. For example, religious explanation of birth of universe is not on par with scientific explanation of birth of universe. How can one maintain neutrality, if a certain idea cannot withstand even simple rational scrutiny?
@eleminatus I certainly agree that they are not equal! The religious "explanation" is not at all at the same level as the scientific one. I suppose what I meant was that we should be neutral in respect to being open to evidence from religion should they be able to give it… (no matter how unlikely that may be.) I agree with you, sorry for any misunderstanding. (Y)
@MrPianoJames I certainly agree that initial position should be neutral. Bias is detrimental to uncovering truth. But after examination starts taking place, some ideas start rapidly losing value. I also apologize for any misunderstanding!
It doesn't take a whole lot of faith to conclude that 0+0=0
It takes a shit-load of faith, however, to conclude that 0+0=1
This of course goes against all logic, so the burden is on theists to prove (or at least provide significant evidence) that 0+0=1. Because otherwise, the rest of us have no reason to believe that it does.
To understand Atheism, the Theist has to reject the concept of a god. They can't/won't because they FEAR what they've been brainwashed into believing; "You will burn in hell." Fear keeps them self medicated. Too bad they can't O.D. or just fucking choke on their religions.
It seems that his fallacious argument is probably what the apologists have started to regurgitate more commonly nowadays. Fact of the matter is: *atheism has no burden of proof on the subject of theistic claims.* If the purpose of his argument is to debunk the validity of atheism by presuming that there is no basis for it, it fails on every level, for reasons which I needn't explain.
Just another dishonest argument from ignorance, apologetic to theistic claims. What else to expect, other than?
@OneWarmDragon I equate pedophilia with lots of things, mostly Christian priests. I am NOT a homophobic, I have gays friends. They use the term "Fag" to describe a homosexual who dishonors the term "Gay". Thats' the only time they use it in a derogatory manner, same way we coin a rapist or murderer a "Monster". So, I apologize if I offended you by thinking I am homophobic, perhaps my phrasing was in poor taste. To quote Hitchens: "Homosexuality is a form of love and it deserves our respect".
@MrJoaquin1978 "Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon"
But whats the point you actually said evolution is just a theory, how can I argue with someone that ignorant?
@MrJoaquin1978 listen I will try and explain so you can understand. Before Darwin the main explanation of life on earth was from the bible.Then we found out that the Bible was wrong and we actually evolved.We also discovered that life could arise from non living matter and the experiments have continued and provided much better results.So we know life wasn't created, it evolved and we know life could have started here on earth all with out needing a designer. kinds fully formed? lmfao
@MrJoaquin1978 BULLSHIT, you are repeating the Intelligent Design dogma word for word, argument by argument. Discovery Institute fan? It takes religion to end up with someone as stupid as you troll.
@MrJoaquin1978 By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
@MrJoaquin1978 doesnt take a christian long till he shows his true colors when you call him out on his bullshit, I have all the sources you need if your serious I would say start with the miller experiments. If you start with wiki they list even more sources, now would you like sources for logic and reason and why your arguments all failed? The watchmaker has been done to death as for intelligent design it has been debunked countless times in various ways. U chose
@MrJoaquin1978 yea troll I read the other comments you made last month, your completely ignorant and deluded. Better luck ? I destroyed you idiot you said
"Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter."
I replied with proof to the contrary and an explanation of the scientific research
"Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"
@MrJoaquin1978 Ring species prove you wrong again. You are just repeating the garbage you learn on christian dogma websites, it has all been refuted and yet you still parrot it?I bet you have no problem with evolution and modern medicine when you go to the hospital because you are a hypocrite.
@MrJoaquin1978 "Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory."
@MrJoaquin1978 listen idiot I cant begin to explain how ignorant you are, calling evolution "just a theory" rates your IQ in almost single digits.Now being stupid and ignorant is one thing but it takes a really special asshole to spread false information as FACTS to other people.
@MrJoaquin1978 try a real scientist next time, creationist science is fraudulent.
Dr. John N. Moore was one of the original founders of the Creation Research Society, and a former managing editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He edited the first creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order in Complexity. He team taught a Natural Science course at Michigan State University with an evolutionist. Another publication: How To Teach Origins (Without ACLU Interference)
@MrJoaquin1978 ignorant cunt, I hate people who lie or misinform. Its one thing to be amusingly stupid but you have surpassed amusement. You don't even know what a fucking theory is you ignorant cunt and you know even less about the accepted FACT of evolution which is "just a theory"
AronRa at 4:42 exactly. I don't get these fundamentalists that think that all Christians don't accept evolution. I was a Christian for many years and have always accepted evolution.
Evidence beets illusion any and every day. An illusion is simply something a person believes in or claims to have seen but has no evidence of it's existence. Great example and the biggest example, religions. They are illusions and delusional to believe in because they have no evidence to prove a god exists. Faith is delusional also because it's the belief in something not based on any evidence.
@hannahmill12 No it's not you idiot. You watch TheAthiestExperience a lot? No, of course not. There is no evidence of who wrote the original bible you fucktard. It's been rewritten over 300 times by random Christians and different other segments of the Christian religion. You are a fucking moronic retard who needs to check out reality and logic. Belief is like faith, bullshit, fairy tales. Stop believing in kid stories and impossible things and grow the fuck up.
@ViciousDave4Life Nope and I dont listen to what these liars say. There is evidence who wrote the Bible, the apostles and disciples. If the Bible was a fairy tale then why were they put into jail? Why were the persecuted? I dont know one person who smuggled Grimms fairy tells into china and was put in prison. do you?
@hannahmill12 There are many fictional books that combine the real world with another world, or even magic or otherworldy things with our own laws of physics. The fact that Jesus' supposed apostles and disciples were imprisoned and whatnot for their beliefs doesn't mean that their beliefs were right, in the same way that while they were recorded as real people in the bible it doesn't mean that the rest of the bible is true. Also if we were lying to you we wouldn't be telling you this stuff.
- "Nope and I dont listen to what these liars say. There is evidence who wrote the Bible, the apostles and disciples."
If you don't want to listen anyway, because you rather want to keep believing the lies that you have already been told, you have no reason to keep posting any more nonsense here. You are wrong, you have been told that you are wrong, and you have the entire Internet to find out how wrong you are, so you are finished here.
@hannahmill12 its no wonder you where converted so easily, you lack commonsense reasoning and logic, ill skip the dishonesty for now and assume you are just ignorant. If there was actual evidence for god then it wouldn't be faith idiot.
the whole point is to have faith and not just accept it as fact.
@hannahmill12 Your bible is so wrong on so many historical and factual points. How can we possibly believe it on supernatural claims?
Examples - What kings were in power at what time and for how long, certain massive events that would have been recorded elsewhere if they happened (Censuses, slaughtering of all children of a certain age, destruction of entire armies), worldwide events such as the flood with no traces of them remaining, the list goes on.
I am an atheist, not because of anything I accepted, but because of something I've rejected. I reject the position that there is a god(s) because no one that believes in a god(s) has shown empirical evidence to support their claim.
@hannahmill12, What evidence do you have that the bible is anything other than a collection of writings by various ancient Middle Eastern religious leaders? I'll be very gracious and grant you that the Jesus of the bible actually existed (which is not a sure thing, by the way). What evidence do you have other than the bible to support the supernatural aspects of his story and his deity? And no, the bible isn't evidence for itself.
@hannahmill12 ever heard of circular arguments? I would guess not since you don't even understand what evidence means.
the book claims there is a god/creator, and your evidence to support this claim is the book itself, now if we assess the validity of the book itself( your only evidence) and we find that the book is false, what does that say about your evidence and the claim in the book? was this too complicated , youtube wont let me draw pictures for you to understand.; )
Christians: you can't use God to explain away another unless you can first prove existence of God scientifically. This goes with everything else: you can't use one variable that you haven't prove to prove another. For example, I believe in existence of aliens, but since i don't have proof for this aliens, i don't use aliens to explain away evidence, especially in the face against science.
@Casshyr How are you going to explain the existence of God if you have no proof? You can’t prove what is written in the Bible unless you experience it and it takes faith to make it come true.
@hannahmill12 personal experience is not proof, and certainly making the claim "you need to have faith" doesn't make it any more true. A Muslim can easily also say "existence of Allah is written in the Quran and unless you experience it, you won't believe it, you need faith to make it true.", and this goes with any number of religious out there today.
@Casshyr Personal experience is truth, and you do need to have faith and grace to believe. faith is a gift from God. There is one true God, and that is Jesus Christ.
@hannahmill12 "Personal experience is truth, and you do need to have faith and grace to believe. faith is a gift from God." => now you are just preaching your opinion, and no longer speaking of evidence. Sure you can have your own opinion, but since you can't prove it in the conventional sense the way we demand in society, keep it off the politics, and don't force it onto others. You may have joy in spreading the gospel, but i certainly don't enjoy listening to it. Cheers.
@hannahmill12 If you did any research into the authorship of the Bible, including looking into topics like the Documentary Hypothesis, you could not make the claim that the Bible is God's word, especially in the case of the first several books of the Old Testament, which are likely the result of several authors with different beliefs of what God was, and different political outlooks and motives, before it was assembled later on in a poorly continuous fashion.
@Casshyr There is not on truth of faith that is in competition with another truth of science. There is one truth to which both faith and scientific reasoning refer. God intented reason, with which we can recognize the rational structures of the world, just as he intented faith, That is why the Christian faith demands and promotes the natural sciences. Faith reminds science that it is supposed to serve creation and not set itself up in a place of God. Science must respect human dignity .
@hannahmill12 "That is why the Christian faith demands and promotes the natural sciences." => LOL to you perhaps, but look around you. 40% of Christians in America deny evolution. More than 20% even think Earth is 6000 years old. Jonathan Wells, leader of intelligent design advocator, denies HIV as cause of AIDS. Sure, there are good Christian scientists like Francis Collins, but if you compare the stupid vs the smart ones, the stupid vastly outnumber.
No, inarguably true: the fossil record provides fossils that are morphologically intermediate between basal and derived clades in the nested hierarchies of life.
"-False. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450"
- i cant find a listing of this page anywhere so unless you can quote it you've still failed to produce any evidence of your claim.
"That's a myth. Evolution is the greatest fairy tale ever to masquerade under the name of science"
- incorrect, evolution is a credible scientific theory of the same level of gravity and atomic theory,you failing to accept this doesnt change the fact it is.
« On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, by John N. Moore, December 27, 1971, p. 5. »
Note that this quote is not a statement made by the organizations mentioned by Moore (in the broader context of this quote) but rather is an interpretation of their findings by Moore. Moore was a founding member of the Creation Research Society.
« harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one »
Which is where natural selection comes in. Also, it is important to keep in mind the role of historical contingency in evolution: a beneficial effect may arise from the compound effects of subsequent mutations/variations that are in themselves neutral. Lenski 2008 on the role of historical contingency is a perfect example of such an event.
Well, to be more precise, the theory did not become fact: it was made irrelevant by observation. The theory still exists as an explanatory model for a more limited set of observations - but the set of observations currently available to us has made the theory redundant.
« Columbus had a theory that the Earth was round despite the popular opinion of his time »
O, no. It was known long before that - at least amongst the educated minority of the establishment - that the world was round. Columbus expected to find, by circumnavigating the globe, a less hazardous route to India - hence the name he gave the native Americans when he landed.
The evolutionary ladders demonstrated by fossiles contradict the methaphysical claims of the existence of a soul, when, in which evolutionary step did we acquire a soul? Skeptical atheists know the answer for this question, we didn't, ever. There is no soul.
Konicava 5 days ago
If God tried to kill every animal on earth, what the hell happened to the fishes? >:l
korvxxxkorvxxx 1 week ago
@korvxxxkorvxxx Asia...
TheRandomguy112 4 days ago 2
@TheRandomguy112 I laughed.
korvxxxkorvxxx 2 days ago
@korvxxxkorvxxx In the flood scenario, they would have been wiped out. If a rain storm described in the bible happened, it would have been a massive, sudden introduction of salt water from nowhere. It would have blended with salt water and ruined the salt water/sweet water balance, it would have changed the temperature, the water pressure, etc., and most, if not all, aquatic life would die
najhoant 18 hours ago
Same stupid questions = job security
freehling420 1 week ago
@freehling420 If only we were paid to do this.
BigBurkhart 1 week ago
@BigBurkhart Well, you should get paid. The job you guys do is incredible. There is no more important job(in my opinion), than to tell the truth of the universe and the earth. Today is way different than 20 or 30yrs ago, real info is on tap for anyone at any time. Sadly, bullshit is also. We need more people to stand up against their grandparents convenient beliefs and not be afraid to talk about it. You do great work, and deserve way more press and recognition than you get. and money
freehling420 1 week ago
@freehling420 The entirety of this show is done on a volunteer basis, and while I've only just started working on the show a few months ago, I'm proud of the work I've done. I'm glad to go help every single week, and while doing this for a paycheck would be great, I'm happy helping out as much as I can now. It's really people like you who keep the show running, and all the support we get from viewers means a lot to everyone on the show.
BigBurkhart 1 week ago
Isn't this the guy who said he was a "christian minister" and got roasted by Jeff Dee?
lewisner 1 week ago
Holy fuck! i feel like a dumb ass. im atheist and im looking at the comments below and there are some REALLY smart atheists. then again im only 14 lol
tylermrogers 2 weeks ago
The reason evolution clashes with fundamentalists is because it flies in the face of their stupid insistence on interpreting Genesis LITERALLY. Not even the Orthodox Jews do that, and it's THEIR book!
Antiks72 2 weeks ago
if every christian got together today they couldn't accomplish the noah feat
dopeasfuckk 3 weeks ago
@dopeasfuckk we don't even have zoo's that have every species on earth
dopeasfuckk 3 weeks ago
@dopeasfuckk you could give the christians a boat and a couple zoos, and they still couldn't do it
dopeasfuckk 3 weeks ago
Love AronRa so much!
kyral210 3 weeks ago
I love Matt and Aron-such brilliant people! I hope more and more people really listen to them
dancingnancy09 1 month ago
Evolution is absurd, but filling a boat with two of every animal on earth is not? The Bible makes so much sense.
jdub94ful 1 month ago 55
@jdub94ful best comment ever.
belladonna4577 1 week ago
@MrJoaquin1978 That's merely an explanatory video on one of the running hypotheses. Try going to the references part of the wikipedia page for it. I dunno about you, but I found more than I could sift through there.
boochainletters12 1 month ago
"Do you have any verifying proof or evidence to make me want to believe you?"
"Well...your blah blah blah (translation: No, but because I don't fully grasp the concepts of scientific reasoning, my unintelligent mind wants to defend itself from being called 'wrong' or 'unsubstantial', so I'll just make an ad hominem or a straw man argument to dance around your inquistion, which would destroy my argument, if I were sensible."
GOD! JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!
TheOkami1113 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck Christ. Fuck god. Fuck the easter bunny. Fuck santa. Fuck Allah. Fuck Shiva. Fuck the "Virgin" Mother-(joeseph's a chump). Fuck Joseph Smith.Fuck L.Ron Hubbard. Fuck donny and Marrie. Fuck Mitt Romney. Fuck Pope Rattzinburger(Nazi Fuck).Fuck anyone who claims to believe but they don't, Fuck anyone that claims god is real, THEY ARE LYING, AND THEY WANT/NEED SOMETHING FROM YOU.
And fuck agnostics. Get off the fence you fucking pussies.
OneWarmDragon 1 month ago
@OneWarmDragon you need help
UnadvisableCloud 1 month ago
aronra's hair is so silky and smooth... no homo
messakg123 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 Type into the searchbar "How Abiogenesis works" and look for a video by donexodus2. He was a christian at the time of the videos making, and he accepts the scientific explanation of abiogenesis. You fail.
boochainletters12 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 MrJoJo, after you have been answered already so many times. Will you keep ignoring and copy pasting the same thing over and over?
NathanWubs 1 month ago
If there is a god, he'd look like AronRa!
countroshculla 1 month ago
Atheists ask for evidence that there is God...where is youre evidence that there is no God?..before you tell me God isnt real because there is no proof...show me proof He is not real.
UnadvisableCloud 1 month ago
Comment removed
BRADizKING 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud Show proof that Zeus doesn't exist and I'll use your method.
BRADizKING 1 month ago 3
@BRADizKING wow, their "arguments" never change lol. and as far as a response to your comment about disproving Zeus -- *cricket....cricket" lol
isaachaze1 1 month ago 13
@UnadvisableCloud Show me proof that unicorns are real. How about vampires? Dragons? Hell, Pokemon? Can you prove that Pokemon are not real?
reshikrom64 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud you`re sooooooooooooooooo stupid, I`m not gonna say more
Belem809 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud Science so far has shown that every phonomena that we are able to observe in the physical world (Gravity, evolution, the functioning of body etc.) all have explanations and causes, that do not require god. There is no reason to assume that anything we see in nature, requires god to function. And before you say "But these things must have been created" I say "no". Just because the universe exists, doesn't mean that it had to have an creator.
ikosabre 1 month ago
Comment removed
Antimidation 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UnadvisableCloud It's really quite simple, why would i have to prove that something does NOT exist? By your definition anything that cannot be proven to NOT exist, is there for real? Do you see the logical fallacy there? If you truly believe what you just said that would then mean you have to believe in anything anyone could come up with, including all the old polytheistic gods of ancient greece, all the polytheistic hindu gods, how about a troll? Or a giant tea pot that orbits the earth?
Antimidation 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud
A non-sensical question. How does one show evidence for isn't?
Killer0fTheSun 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud It's not a person's job to prove something doesn't exist. So, if I walk up to you and say "There are little green men on Mars and they're planning to invade!" and you ask for me to "Prove it" should I retort with, "It's not my job to prove it, it's your job to prove that they don't exist."? Not at all, and I would not expect you to believe it unless I had proof.
TheGinetik 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud since when are we required to prove the negative?
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus not negative, neutral.
zdunichme 1 month ago
@zdunichme "does not exist" is not a neutral argument!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus Atheists, dont say "does not exist" Athiests say "we dont believe your claim"
zdunichme 1 month ago
@zdunichme you can phrase it in any way you want. What those claims imply, is the rejection of gods. The only neutral position in this quarrel, is "I dont know".
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus That's not true. If somebody claimed that there was a money in their ass, would you say "well, I don't know about that..."? Of course not, you would reject the claim because it's extremely unlikely that somebody fit or even put a monkey inside their ass. My analogy is actually more convincing than the whole god thing anyway. There is at least a physical chance that some weird guy put a monkey in their ass. God is just an abstract concept that varies person to person.
MrCoolUS 1 month ago
@MrCoolUS emm, I agree. There might have been a miscommunication. I was merely defining the position of a reply. Just like your analogy suggests, "I dont know" is the neutral reply (no matter the likelihood of such reply). "I believe" would be a positive reply and "I dont believe" would be a negative one. That was my only argument. I agree with the rest you say!
eleminatus 1 month ago
@eleminatus I don't believe is the neutral one actually.
There's "I believe x exists", the positive claim. There's "I don't believe x exists", the neutral claim, and there's "I believe x doesn't exist", the negative claim. Non-belief is the neutral, default position.
They're two different things, claims of knowledge and belief. There's gnostic and agnostic theism and atheism. Most atheists are agnostic atheists (don't claim to know there's no god, but don't believe there is).
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 I could heavily argue the semantics here, but i completely agree with the argument you are making - disbelief is the default position.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus That's the common consensus on what the terms mean, I rarely see anyone arguing differently.
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 its not the definitions Im concerned about. Its the structure of your claim. Whats the difference between "I dont believe x exists" and "I believe x doesnt exist"? Thats the semantics issue I have. These both claims deal with belief. Or to be more precise, the absence of the belief. They essentially mean the same, so how do you distinguish between the two and even give them neutral and negative properties?
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus They are different things. One is the null position, it is just a lack of belief. The other one claims or asserts a belief that this thing doesn't exist. Because the latter is making a claim (that x doesn't exist), they require evidence.
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 and "I dont believe x exists" isnt a claim? We agree, that its a default position, but by no means is it neutral. Just like the other two, it asserts its contextual position. A neutral claim would imply not taking sides. While all three of your examples are explicitly on one side or the other. Where is the neutrality in "I dont believe x exists"?
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus It's a claim of your belief but you're not making an assertion (that something exists or does not exist). Lack of belief is the null position, you're not claiming that you believe a god exists or does not exist.
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 when one says "I dont believe x exists", of course he/she is making an assertion. A person clearly states, that he/she does not believe in the existence of x. How is that not an assertion?
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus They are asserting their lack of belief, they are not asserting that a god does or does not exist. Claiming "I believe a god exists" or "I believe a god does not exist" is different than the null, default position of "I do not believe a god exists".
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 yeah, they both assert the lack of belief. But you still did not demonstrate how one of them is neutral, when they all clearly take a side in the hypothetical argument.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus "I believe a god exists" asserts that there is a god. "I believe no god exists" asserts that there is no god. "I don't believe a god exists" makes no assertion. Everyone who has never heard of a god is of that position, they do not believe either way, they are not making a positive assertion of a god's existence.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. Maybe check out Iron Chariots, they probably have a better explanation.
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 how can you say "I dont believe a god exists" makes no assertion? Its not a positive assertion, its a negative one. If a person, who was never exposed to the notion of god, is asked such question, "I dont know" is the neutral positio, since it goes neither way. With "I dont believe a god exists" you are expressing a disbelief - taking a negative position on an issue.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus "I don't know" is lack of belief. They do not actively believe a god exists, therefore they do not believe a god exists. What aren't you getting?
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 So here is how I see it - positive position, is the one, where you accept the existence of god; negative is the one, where you dont accept the existence of god (whether its theistic or gnostic approach). Neutral position, is the one that does not take any side - belief or disbelief. So the question is, what kind of position is truly neutral? In my opinion its "I dont know". It does not take sides and it deals with both, belief and knowledge.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus The neutral position is the default position. Does someone who says "I don't know" believe that a god exists? No? Then they don't believe a god exists.
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 I disagree. Neutral and default are two very different things.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus Okay, well does a person who says "I don't know" believe that a god exists?
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 he believes neither. Let me use a more practical question. Lets assume (since I dont know), that you are not aware of what parthenogenesis is. And I ask you "Do you believe parthenogenesis is possible"? By answering "I dont know", you display the position of uncertainty. Meaning you neither accept the claim nor decline it. You may want to find more information or read about it. But at the point of asking the question, you want to assume neutrality.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus If I answer "I don't know", does that mean I believe parthenogenesis is possible?
Fortune2point0 3 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 no, you dont. If you say "I dont know" you pick neither - believe or dont believe. At the point of answering, you pick no side. You dont claim to believe and you dont claim not to believe.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus Precisely. If I say "I don't know", then I do not believe it's possible, nor do I believe it is not possible.
Fortune2point0 2 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 well yeah, thats exactly what I have been saying.
eleminatus 2 weeks ago
@eleminatus That's what I've been saying too, but you've been disagreeing with it.
Fortune2point0 2 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 Whether or not things are "possible" is insignificant compared to whether or not things are "probable".
2Jax 2 weeks ago
@2Jax I agree.
Fortune2point0 2 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 Have you heard the piece of logic that goes:
Speculation void of evidence equals an infinitly small amount on a scale of probability. ?
This can be shown by way of proving the opposite (Speculation void of evidence equals any finite amount on the scale of probability) is impossible.
2Jax 2 weeks ago
@2Jax I've heard something similar. And I agree that proving something 100% one way or the other is impossible, except for in base logic and mathematics.
Fortune2point0 2 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 Imagine 100,000 different speculations void of evidence that have these in common: 1: tomorrow, 2: the world will be destroyed. If there is 0.001% for each speculation there is 100% chance that 1 and 2 will happen. If you imagine 1,000,000,000 different speculations void of evidence that have 1 and 2 in common and if there is 0.0000001% chance for each then there is 100% chance that 1 and 2 will happen. Now imagine infinite with 1 and 2 in common.
You get me?
2Jax 2 weeks ago
@Fortune2point0 Im not saying that "I dont know" is a perfect and completely neutral response. It may be flawed. I simply do not agree with your proposed neutral position.
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus That is what Athiests say, they say we don't know. Rational Atheists anyways.
zdunichme 1 month ago
@eleminatus Rational thinking actually includes being neutral towards all ideas that haven't been proven or disproven, even when we don't know the answer.
MrPianoJames 3 weeks ago
@MrPianoJames I disagree. Not all ideas are equal after applying rational thinking. For example, religious explanation of birth of universe is not on par with scientific explanation of birth of universe. How can one maintain neutrality, if a certain idea cannot withstand even simple rational scrutiny?
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
@eleminatus I certainly agree that they are not equal! The religious "explanation" is not at all at the same level as the scientific one. I suppose what I meant was that we should be neutral in respect to being open to evidence from religion should they be able to give it… (no matter how unlikely that may be.) I agree with you, sorry for any misunderstanding. (Y)
MrPianoJames 3 weeks ago
@MrPianoJames I certainly agree that initial position should be neutral. Bias is detrimental to uncovering truth. But after examination starts taking place, some ideas start rapidly losing value. I also apologize for any misunderstanding!
eleminatus 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrCoolUS 1 month ago
@eleminatus unless you prefix it with "the lack of evidence suggests that god......."
TheDharmawheel 3 weeks ago
@UnadvisableCloud Our evidence is precisely a LACK of evidence.
It doesn't take a whole lot of faith to conclude that 0+0=0
It takes a shit-load of faith, however, to conclude that 0+0=1
This of course goes against all logic, so the burden is on theists to prove (or at least provide significant evidence) that 0+0=1. Because otherwise, the rest of us have no reason to believe that it does.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@UnadvisableCloud you clearly don't understand what was just said in this clip.
TheDharmawheel 3 weeks ago
Is AronRa Matt Dillahunty's brother? Looks and acts just like him. Imagine a long wig on Matt.
Cryofax 1 month ago
To understand Atheism, the Theist has to reject the concept of a god. They can't/won't because they FEAR what they've been brainwashed into believing; "You will burn in hell." Fear keeps them self medicated. Too bad they can't O.D. or just fucking choke on their religions.
TheCrimsonification 1 month ago
Jesus is an atheist?
Stickmaleboy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It seems that his fallacious argument is probably what the apologists have started to regurgitate more commonly nowadays. Fact of the matter is: *atheism has no burden of proof on the subject of theistic claims.* If the purpose of his argument is to debunk the validity of atheism by presuming that there is no basis for it, it fails on every level, for reasons which I needn't explain.
Just another dishonest argument from ignorance, apologetic to theistic claims. What else to expect, other than?
seanmathews009 1 month ago
Comment removed
seanmathews009 1 month ago
Comment removed
seanmathews009 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 what the difference between a christian fag and a regular fag?
pandorachild 1 month ago
@pandorachild A regular fag fucks other fags, a christian fag fucks little boys.
spiritualeggnog 1 month ago 26
@spiritualeggnog so you equate homosexuality with pedophilia ? Really ?
You're smart enough to know there's no god- what's up with the homophobia ?
OneWarmDragon 1 month ago
@OneWarmDragon I equate pedophilia with lots of things, mostly Christian priests. I am NOT a homophobic, I have gays friends. They use the term "Fag" to describe a homosexual who dishonors the term "Gay". Thats' the only time they use it in a derogatory manner, same way we coin a rapist or murderer a "Monster". So, I apologize if I offended you by thinking I am homophobic, perhaps my phrasing was in poor taste. To quote Hitchens: "Homosexuality is a form of love and it deserves our respect".
spiritualeggnog 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 "Spontaneous generation refers to both the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge from sources other than seeds, eggs or parents and to the theories which explained the apparent phenomenon"
But whats the point you actually said evolution is just a theory, how can I argue with someone that ignorant?
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 Google it idiot. Not one thing you have said on this page is factual.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 listen I will try and explain so you can understand. Before Darwin the main explanation of life on earth was from the bible.Then we found out that the Bible was wrong and we actually evolved.We also discovered that life could arise from non living matter and the experiments have continued and provided much better results.So we know life wasn't created, it evolved and we know life could have started here on earth all with out needing a designer. kinds fully formed? lmfao
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 BULLSHIT, you are repeating the Intelligent Design dogma word for word, argument by argument. Discovery Institute fan? It takes religion to end up with someone as stupid as you troll.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 I would quit too after getting you ass handed to you repeatedly.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 /Logical_fallacy, /wiki/Teleological_argument,/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy,
/wiki/Intelligent_design is faith not science /wiki/Dover_trial
/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 /wiki/Paleontology
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 /wiki/Cosmology
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 /wiki/Chemistry
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 /wiki/Biology
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 /wiki/Evolution sites 279 sources
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 wiki/Abiogenesis lists 137 sources by real scientists who didn't get their PHds from a trailer in the desert.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. Pasteur himself remarked, after a definitive finding in 1864, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 doesnt take a christian long till he shows his true colors when you call him out on his bullshit, I have all the sources you need if your serious I would say start with the miller experiments. If you start with wiki they list even more sources, now would you like sources for logic and reason and why your arguments all failed? The watchmaker has been done to death as for intelligent design it has been debunked countless times in various ways. U chose
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 yea troll I read the other comments you made last month, your completely ignorant and deluded. Better luck ? I destroyed you idiot you said
"Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter."
I replied with proof to the contrary and an explanation of the scientific research
"Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose"
R U DUMB?
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 Ring species prove you wrong again. You are just repeating the garbage you learn on christian dogma websites, it has all been refuted and yet you still parrot it?I bet you have no problem with evolution and modern medicine when you go to the hospital because you are a hypocrite.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 watchmaker argument. simply refuted, who made your complex god?
or would you need special pleading to argue further?
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 "Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory."
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 listen idiot I cant begin to explain how ignorant you are, calling evolution "just a theory" rates your IQ in almost single digits.Now being stupid and ignorant is one thing but it takes a really special asshole to spread false information as FACTS to other people.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 your FACTS are wrong. All living things are made up of matter why wouldn't life originate from it? Look up the RNA project.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 try a real scientist next time, creationist science is fraudulent.
Dr. John N. Moore was one of the original founders of the Creation Research Society, and a former managing editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He edited the first creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order in Complexity. He team taught a Natural Science course at Michigan State University with an evolutionist. Another publication: How To Teach Origins (Without ACLU Interference)
pandorachild 1 month ago
@MrJoaquin1978 ignorant cunt, I hate people who lie or misinform. Its one thing to be amusingly stupid but you have surpassed amusement. You don't even know what a fucking theory is you ignorant cunt and you know even less about the accepted FACT of evolution which is "just a theory"
pandorachild 1 month ago
christians are so fucking stupid and ill love for one to challenge me
jpbarbedwire666 1 month ago
AronRa at 4:42 exactly. I don't get these fundamentalists that think that all Christians don't accept evolution. I was a Christian for many years and have always accepted evolution.
MountainPeak11 1 month ago
Man, I wish I had AronRa's hair.
drowninginferno 1 month ago
@drowninginferno So does Matt.
Bfdidc 1 month ago
is that "microsoft sam" to the left?
sounds exactly the same.
87mrks 1 month ago
Dang! That guy's hair is luxurious. I want to roam my fingers in it.
1Lanavis1 2 months ago
@1Lanavis1 Yeah, it's longer and shinier than mine, and I'm a chick. D:
RiskyCricket 2 months ago
Matt and Aron should arm wrestle! That would be cool!
Kingucktoad 2 months ago
As soon as I saw AronRa, I new this was gonna be good.
TheCircusReject 2 months ago 22
Evidence beets illusion any and every day. An illusion is simply something a person believes in or claims to have seen but has no evidence of it's existence. Great example and the biggest example, religions. They are illusions and delusional to believe in because they have no evidence to prove a god exists. Faith is delusional also because it's the belief in something not based on any evidence.
ViciousDave4Life 2 months ago
@ViciousDave4Life No we have evidence, you just dont believe in the Bible. The Bible is our proof of our existence
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 No it's not you idiot. You watch TheAthiestExperience a lot? No, of course not. There is no evidence of who wrote the original bible you fucktard. It's been rewritten over 300 times by random Christians and different other segments of the Christian religion. You are a fucking moronic retard who needs to check out reality and logic. Belief is like faith, bullshit, fairy tales. Stop believing in kid stories and impossible things and grow the fuck up.
ViciousDave4Life 2 months ago
@ViciousDave4Life Nope and I dont listen to what these liars say. There is evidence who wrote the Bible, the apostles and disciples. If the Bible was a fairy tale then why were they put into jail? Why were the persecuted? I dont know one person who smuggled Grimms fairy tells into china and was put in prison. do you?
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 There are many fictional books that combine the real world with another world, or even magic or otherworldy things with our own laws of physics. The fact that Jesus' supposed apostles and disciples were imprisoned and whatnot for their beliefs doesn't mean that their beliefs were right, in the same way that while they were recorded as real people in the bible it doesn't mean that the rest of the bible is true. Also if we were lying to you we wouldn't be telling you this stuff.
MountainPeak11 1 month ago
@hannahmill12
- "Nope and I dont listen to what these liars say. There is evidence who wrote the Bible, the apostles and disciples."
If you don't want to listen anyway, because you rather want to keep believing the lies that you have already been told, you have no reason to keep posting any more nonsense here. You are wrong, you have been told that you are wrong, and you have the entire Internet to find out how wrong you are, so you are finished here.
Try the Evid3nc3 channel, or Wikipedia.
TheAtheistExperience 1 month ago
@hannahmill12 its no wonder you where converted so easily, you lack commonsense reasoning and logic, ill skip the dishonesty for now and assume you are just ignorant. If there was actual evidence for god then it wouldn't be faith idiot.
the whole point is to have faith and not just accept it as fact.
pandorachild 1 month ago
@hannahmill12 Your bible is so wrong on so many historical and factual points. How can we possibly believe it on supernatural claims?
Examples - What kings were in power at what time and for how long, certain massive events that would have been recorded elsewhere if they happened (Censuses, slaughtering of all children of a certain age, destruction of entire armies), worldwide events such as the flood with no traces of them remaining, the list goes on.
boochainletters12 1 month ago
These callers never answer questions and how many times and ways do these guys have to say the same thing ?
jamesmaseobrown 2 months ago
I am an atheist, not because of anything I accepted, but because of something I've rejected. I reject the position that there is a god(s) because no one that believes in a god(s) has shown empirical evidence to support their claim.
dmnemaine 2 months ago 38
@dmnemaine The bible is proof and Jesus is evidence.
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12, What evidence do you have that the bible is anything other than a collection of writings by various ancient Middle Eastern religious leaders? I'll be very gracious and grant you that the Jesus of the bible actually existed (which is not a sure thing, by the way). What evidence do you have other than the bible to support the supernatural aspects of his story and his deity? And no, the bible isn't evidence for itself.
dmnemaine 1 month ago
@dmnemaine The Bible is our proof that God exists and Jesus is the evidence it isnt hard
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 ever heard of circular arguments? I would guess not since you don't even understand what evidence means.
the book claims there is a god/creator, and your evidence to support this claim is the book itself, now if we assess the validity of the book itself( your only evidence) and we find that the book is false, what does that say about your evidence and the claim in the book? was this too complicated , youtube wont let me draw pictures for you to understand.; )
pandorachild 1 month ago
@dmnemaine My coworker says that what you say is fine but you need to "have faith". That is where faith comes in. LOL.
Jeffersonwazright 1 month ago
Christians: you can't use God to explain away another unless you can first prove existence of God scientifically. This goes with everything else: you can't use one variable that you haven't prove to prove another. For example, I believe in existence of aliens, but since i don't have proof for this aliens, i don't use aliens to explain away evidence, especially in the face against science.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr How are you going to explain the existence of God if you have no proof? You can’t prove what is written in the Bible unless you experience it and it takes faith to make it come true.
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 personal experience is not proof, and certainly making the claim "you need to have faith" doesn't make it any more true. A Muslim can easily also say "existence of Allah is written in the Quran and unless you experience it, you won't believe it, you need faith to make it true.", and this goes with any number of religious out there today.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@Casshyr Personal experience is truth, and you do need to have faith and grace to believe. faith is a gift from God. There is one true God, and that is Jesus Christ.
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 "Personal experience is truth, and you do need to have faith and grace to believe. faith is a gift from God." => now you are just preaching your opinion, and no longer speaking of evidence. Sure you can have your own opinion, but since you can't prove it in the conventional sense the way we demand in society, keep it off the politics, and don't force it onto others. You may have joy in spreading the gospel, but i certainly don't enjoy listening to it. Cheers.
Casshyr 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 The bible is Gods word, he is the author and my faith we believe that the Bible is proof of Gods existence and that God is evidence.
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12
Well, you can't get any more blatantly circular than that reasoning.
deviroth 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 If you did any research into the authorship of the Bible, including looking into topics like the Documentary Hypothesis, you could not make the claim that the Bible is God's word, especially in the case of the first several books of the Old Testament, which are likely the result of several authors with different beliefs of what God was, and different political outlooks and motives, before it was assembled later on in a poorly continuous fashion.
skitchmusic 1 month ago
@hannahmill12 did you just replied to yourself ? is that a christian thing ?
jpbarbedwire666 1 month ago
@Casshyr There is not on truth of faith that is in competition with another truth of science. There is one truth to which both faith and scientific reasoning refer. God intented reason, with which we can recognize the rational structures of the world, just as he intented faith, That is why the Christian faith demands and promotes the natural sciences. Faith reminds science that it is supposed to serve creation and not set itself up in a place of God. Science must respect human dignity .
hannahmill12 2 months ago
@hannahmill12 "That is why the Christian faith demands and promotes the natural sciences." => LOL to you perhaps, but look around you. 40% of Christians in America deny evolution. More than 20% even think Earth is 6000 years old. Jonathan Wells, leader of intelligent design advocator, denies HIV as cause of AIDS. Sure, there are good Christian scientists like Francis Collins, but if you compare the stupid vs the smart ones, the stupid vastly outnumber.
Casshyr 2 months ago
Man, that AronRa guy is pretty smart!!!
ReiGrim 2 months ago
@ReiGrim His hair is actually an extension of his brain.
TheCircusReject 2 months ago 5
« Origin of Life »
But I was not speaking about the origins of life. I was speaking of evolution.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
« False »
No, inarguably true: the fossil record provides fossils that are morphologically intermediate between basal and derived clades in the nested hierarchies of life.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJoaquin1978 "That's a myth. Evolution is the greatest fairy tale ever to masquerade under the name of science."
Then disprove the theory and win a noble prize. GO!
xebek 2 months ago
@MrJoaquin1978
"Even at the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life"
- dear god how stupid are you? EVOLUTION ISNT MEANT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!
- evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life NOT it's origin (that's a separate field called abiogenesis)
types10000 2 months ago
@MrJoaquin1978
"Excluding 'neutral' mutations, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one"
- what's your point? (i've already explained why harmful and neutral mutations do not propagate.)
"Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p.742"
- this utterly outdated information that is directly contradicted by all the modern examples of beneficial mutations.
types10000 2 months ago
@MrJoaquin1978
"False. 'Upon rigorous examination and analysis"
- incorrect, i explained precisely how it happens, also your quote is from an opinion piece (not a scientific paper)
"You've failed to demonstrate how my point is an unsound argument."
- incorrect again, i demonstrated how it was an equivocation fallacy with reference to an analogy.
types10000 2 months ago
@MrJoaquin1978
"-False. The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450"
- i cant find a listing of this page anywhere so unless you can quote it you've still failed to produce any evidence of your claim.
"That's a myth. Evolution is the greatest fairy tale ever to masquerade under the name of science"
- incorrect, evolution is a credible scientific theory of the same level of gravity and atomic theory,you failing to accept this doesnt change the fact it is.
types10000 2 months ago
@MrJoaquin1978
« On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, by John N. Moore, December 27, 1971, p. 5. »
Note that this quote is not a statement made by the organizations mentioned by Moore (in the broader context of this quote) but rather is an interpretation of their findings by Moore. Moore was a founding member of the Creation Research Society.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
« harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one »
Which is where natural selection comes in. Also, it is important to keep in mind the role of historical contingency in evolution: a beneficial effect may arise from the compound effects of subsequent mutations/variations that are in themselves neutral. Lenski 2008 on the role of historical contingency is a perfect example of such an event.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
« After he proved his theory it became a fact »
Well, to be more precise, the theory did not become fact: it was made irrelevant by observation. The theory still exists as an explanatory model for a more limited set of observations - but the set of observations currently available to us has made the theory redundant.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
« Columbus had a theory that the Earth was round despite the popular opinion of his time »
O, no. It was known long before that - at least amongst the educated minority of the establishment - that the world was round. Columbus expected to find, by circumnavigating the globe, a less hazardous route to India - hence the name he gave the native Americans when he landed.
MrGralgrathor 2 months ago
I like the guy with the (long) hair. He should be on more often.
xXbestefarXx 2 months ago
@xXbestefarXx aronra. you could have just said the guy with the hair. yeah he's pretty awesome.
xebek 2 months ago