NO !!!!!! There is a very big difference between Science and Evolution. I know about scientific research and support Science. Atheists and evolutionist try to hide their LIES behind science. Science is the study of matters and they do practical research. But Evolution is a theory on paper only. Evolution is illusion based on ideas and thoughts. There is NO proof of FIRST LIFE in evolution. Scientist still trying to know the origin of First life. But evolutionists already started to believe.
@realtyofislam I understand it's hard to grasp such a monumental concept such as evolution, lots of people can't. Try to answer these questions, it might shed some light if you answer honestly:
1.) Why do we have a tailbone?
2.) Why do we have an appendix?
3.) Why do people get their wisdom teeth removed?
4.) 20,000 species on this planet go extinct every year, why?
5.) Do these extinct species get replaced?
6.) How does bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
'god' is not meaningfully defined, ergo it is 100% certain, by simple tautology, that 'god' does not refer to anything that exists (or that does not).
but why are people so universally prone to the delusion that 'god' (like 'soul', 'spirit', etc.) is an intelligible, coherent concept? afterall, humanity has invented 1,000s of crazy religions and "gods" in only 30,000 years - something is wrong with them to make them believe such nutty shit. i think it has something to do with that people...
...so often call 'god' a "he," just like they would a male person - i think it is man who made "god" in his/her image, and not vice versa.
for more info demonstrating why it is correct to say "god" is a meaningless, incohrent pseudoconcept, and for more info on the psychological explanation for the near universal human delusion that "disembodied minds" such as "gods" and "spirits" are plausible, please see the links in the video description here:
One might argue that 1.love is not clearly defined, so - by your logic - it doesn't exist; 2.to some people/religions god(s) is/are defined well enough.
Also, god was not always a "he" - in matriarchal times god was a "she".
Having countless religions also doesn't disprove that there might be a true one there might be a true god.
The thing is, a "true god" was never demonstrated with any evidence to exist. And once we get presented with the particular claims - the real fun begins.
1) i think the only way one has any idea of love is to think in terms of the material (which includes psychological) world (e.g. you love your child by taking care of it and feeling sad when it is hurt). just think about the insanity that christians are asked to believe: that "god" is loving and yet created hell, flooded the world, and commanded slaughter and sacrifice - only when love is made meaningless can it accomodate such horror.
2) whether the christian "god" is thought of as a "he" or a "she", i think most would agree that it is not an organism or gendered in any physical, biological sense. the point is that they are using words that clearly don't apply and that the words they use hint strongly that they are suffering from psychological delusion (specifically, the delusional belief in the plausibility of disembodied mind).
3) of course, the fact that there are thousands of necessarily false religions and "gods" doesn't itself prove that christianity is false. however, it does provide some very good evidence in favor the fact, in so far as it hints at a resolution for that nagging question of how billions could be so deluded by such fantastic nonsense.
There were/are other gods, too. Some of them were female. Yahweh, on the other hand, IS described as a male. It makes no sense, but hey - it's not their first time ;-))
On the other hand, I realize that they have to call him SOMEHOW, so "he" was probably fit enough for the times when they came up with him...
wouldn't it take an objective moral "lens" to know if something is absolutely right or wrong and thus prove the existence of an authoritative moral law giver (God)? On atheism whose to say what is ultimately right or wrong? what if I disagree? i think its funny how Matt calls God evil. lol Matt I love you. :)
@finalfantasy8911 then this entire argument Matt presented falls apart because im equally justified in saying God is holy and just while Matt calls God evil. It's just his opinion and my opinion is just as valid as his opinion.
Well here's something important to know. Everyone (atheists & religious) is to come to an agreement on how they define "morality"; an understanding of that concept. In one word, morality=rightousness. In accordance with that definition, the religious claim God is perfect in morality. Atheist Matt challenges that in accordance with that same moral definition through logical reasoning. You can say god is holy, Matt can say god is evil; but are your standards of morality the same?
Wait, wait, wait. "That is not right, that is not moral." Says who or what exactly? I mean, seriously, what makes anything moral or immoral? It's just a feeling you have, just a response or emotional reaction to something, an uncomfortable state. It might not be pleasant, but what standard are you presenting to say that murder or rape is abhorrent? Not to say that it isn't, but do you have anything that can clearly say without question that this is so? Science or evidence?
In the most intelligent atheistic worldview, there is no objective factor to determine the value of right & wrong; all that is left to the only ones who care: humans. Making morality subjective of course. I'll let you in on some cosmic truth. All morality is contrived & equal; although moral values tend to vary in pros/cons as well. There is no standard, its a free-for-all, you do whatever you want & no one can say otherwise. And with power, your ideals can get more respect.
@finalfantasy8911 Well that's sort of my point here. Atheists on the one hand claim that there is no God, no objective morality, and we just sort of figure it out (while of course denying that they are immoral). However, while having no standard with which to judge immoral from moral acts, they then condemn passages in The Bible as clearly, clearly immoral, wicked, and evil. I'm essentially calling them out on an incompatibility in their reasoning.
@Sickopath333Well here's something important to know. Everyone (atheists & religious) is to come to an agreement on how they define "morality"; an understanding of that concept. In one word, morality=rightousness. In accordance with that definition, the religious claim God is perfect in morality. Atheist Matt challenges that in accordance with that same moral definition through logical reasoning. You can say god is holy, Matt can say god is evil; but are your standards of morality the same?
I was a individual with faith in cristianity, but how can you not abandone your religion... Whatever it is, when you watch this wise guys talking on the show. Thank you so much guys. I was blinded by religion but now i can see, i was lost, but now i got my life back thanks to this show.
It kind of annoys me when they cut off the caller, and keep rebutting their points. Additional discussion on a tangent is cool, but if they're still arguing the points, the caller should be able to respond. It's always more satisfying when the caller faces their cognitive dissonance and either says they'll think about it, or just jumps straight to the yelling (like the "punch your fat head for Jesus" caller).
I always ask "believers" if a voice came out of the sky and told you to kill your son.."would you?" If they try to justify their answer with that question, I know I'm dealing with a irrational and illogical quack!
@AntonTheSpot Perspective: whole cultures throughout history have been deeply involved in religious human sacrifice. In the Bible we find Yahweh giving a definitive no to human sacrifice.
A better question: would Americans participate in war after war when there is no immanent danger to their country? The answer is yes and it is called human sacrifice.
I love this. I can actually hear the atheists talk without whiny, uneducated believers complaining - making background noise for the logical, realistic non-believers.
It creeps me out when Christioans start talking about being bathed in the blood of the lamb and whatnot. Please don't bathe me in blood, no matter what the magical properties you think it has.
Listening to this again I can't believe Matt studied Christianity. It seems he overlooks the basic fact that Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God. He ascribes the cruelty released on Jesus to God the Father. He accepts the premise of the Father but not the Son. It's like saying your tricycle with the broken wheel doesn't work because of the design, not the fact that it has a broken wheel. It's a straw man argument.
Just commenting on your comment. If you click "see all" and then arrange by thread you can find what you wrote. If not, have a fine new year and ciao.
If life is what you make it, then why should I settle for a compromise, concerning morality? Why not go for complete self-indulgence? (Basic example) If I'm lost out in wilderness and starving and come across 1 piece of fruit, but also another starving traveler, why share; when I can take the entire piece of fruit for myself, even if it means killing the desperate other traveler? After all, I'm going to get away with the murder, while also gaining a whole fruit. What cons are there?
@finalfantasy8911 Morality is intrinsically pluralistic: when you talk about 'being moral' or 'having morals', you're talking about thinking outside one's own needs and wants and being concerned about how your actions affect the lives of those around you.
Asking the question "Why shouldn't my morality be self-indulgence" is confused, because it's basically saying "Why shouldn't my morality be not morality?"
@finalfantasy8911 In the case of 'lost in the wilderness, find fruit, share with other starving man', basic empathy can be a prime motivator for helping those in need. As for practical reasons, it's better to be with someone in the wilderness than by oneself; what if you're attacked?
It's no accident that we seem to have an instinctive ability to work together in groups; evolutionarily speaking, all those that went off by themselves and relied only on themselves GOT EATEN.
@TheGeneralCritic And those now outside of the elite group of eugenicists that rule the world are in risk of being eaten. But if we learn from history, we know that those that serve the elite are eaten first.
@finalfantasy8911 erm, empathy? why do you need some ultimate reason to do good? surely knowing that person is going to suffer and die is good enough reason to share the fruit. my conscience would eat me alive if i just walked away, and im sure yours would to. believers like to think a lack of god means no reason to do good, but when the situation arises, its your conscience and sense of empathy that won't let you walk away.
I've lost both my conscience and sense of empathy. Without a god, I am truly free to do whatever I wish. Sure the absense of a god is not particularly an excuse to throw one's conscience away; but I find humans very annoying and quite worthless. Like roaches found at an abandoned hotel. Just look at our government today and history, for a start. The strong rule the weak, and theres nothing to bring a "happy ending". So let man rot back into the earth.
@finalfantasy8911 big fan of Carlin (RIP). i have emotions that are hard-wired into me. empathy is one. i cant turn it off regardless of the fact i believe in very little. in fact empathy is an evolved trait of a social species so its independent of what we think anyway. i might agree that we're all worthless but if you can still walk away in the situation then you may have an issue there, only psychos don't feel empathy.
@finalfantasy8911 how does a cannibal compare to some guy who's hungry? living in a black and white view of the world where we are either all worthwhile or worthless is just lazy and small minded. each situation needs weighing up individually. its a lot easier just to make a blanket statement that we are all cockroaches. and not only that but it seems as though your suggesting that we could have been any other way. its your expectations that haven't been met. well sorry to disappoint you.
Isn't evil and immorality just as associated with humanity as goodness and morality? And if the universe is truly ammoral, then so is every product of it; that includes humans. And if everythings a free-for-all and your life is completely at the mercy of chance and your actions and the actions of others, and all morals contrived and also equal, I'm going to create a moral system strictly revolved around myself, even if it means negative repercussions on others.(1)
I wish everybody was like these two. The world would be a much happier place for everybody. Can't we all understand that religions hurt us instead of doing good ?
If you saw a group of people slaughtering a man and saying they did something bad, but because during his lifetime that guy was making miracles all they have to do is making a statue of the slaughtered body an pray at it and that means they're forgiven, would you say that'd be a legitimate religion, they must not be taken to jail and all of them are sane?
I have a question for christian people, so I can understand better where they're coming from. If you were there at the time of the crucifixion but everybody decided to stop the execution and left and you were the only person left in the entire world who could do that, would you have crucified Jesus yourself?
@IHazRhythMIW I hope you're not implying that Matt & Tracie (the two in this video) have NOT read the bible. If you are, then I hate to disappoint you, both of them have decades of research & knowledge about the bible (they were both very religious before this show). Matt can quote bible versus like it's nothing. As for me, I read the bible, this is why I am now atheist. I wanted to believe but after reading The Old Testament, it's impossible, that shit is beyond science fiction.
@TravisVadon Do you expect texts thousands of years old to read like the New York Times from 2012? You should be open to the idea that a particular text might not be teaching you what you think it is. I've corresponded with Matt. I can tell you for certain that he misconstrues what Christianity teaches at it's most fundamental levels. He may have gone to school but he doesn't grasp the most basic tenets of Christian theology.
@IHazRhythMIW well you clearly need to look a little harder... for a start the two in the video most definitely have. I personally have. oh and btw if you want to slam my belief about the magical purple leprechaun/unicorn hybrid who created the universe then you better read all 500,000 pages of his holy book... some things are so patently untrue that reading every little absurdity is unnecessary.
@IHazRhythMIW I am yet to see many christians read the bible fully as well. The Apostle at the church my family goes to has not read all of it, and when asked says that the bible is too many pieces to put together. In other words christians, like SOME atheiests, read what they want and argue those points, ignoring the others, but that is the definition of ignorance.
A great example of two people completely in denial of how forgiveness works. Nobody can "just forgive." Do they think that forgiveness is a magical incantation? That you just say these words and *poof* forgiveness happens? For forgiveness to happen, someone always has to suffer, to take a loss. This is universal.
@sorawadokokara The one who forgives must pay. You have been insulted. Does it hurt? Ask yourself what would happen if you did not forgive me. Would you brood about it and shun me? Would you run down my name to everyone you met? Would you sue me for slander? In these cases you would make me pay.
@caveatemp If you were to forgive somebody would you be required to slaughter someone or something to do that? Do you think the crucifixion is not gory? That is suitable to be shown to a child?
@sorawadokokara Thank God crucifixion is not a one size fits all punishment. Is that how it works in your mind? You should read the book again. Jesus says he lays his own life down of his own free will. He alone has the power to do this and then take it back up. God doesn't slaughter anyone. We brought death into the world. At least if you don't believe you should get your theology straight.
@sorawadokokara Jesus is the incarnation of God. Jesus takes on the suffering. It's not God inflicting the punishment on Jesus. I'm not brainwashing anyone. I made a simple comment on the video. You chose to engage me in conversation. Do you feel brainwashed? Do you take google to be the ultimate authority in the world? I choose to think for myself.
@sorawadokokara Do you know anything about the subject? Read N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God laying out the historic evidence for the resurrection. Maybe mocking gives you pleasure but it makes for extremely dull conversation on my part.
@caveatemp What part of it was mocking? If you refer to the brainwashing part I wasn't mocking. I actually really meant it. If I didn't believe that then I'd be a theist, don't you think?
@sorawadokokara Well, I guess I can't tell if you're ignorant or just mocking (or maybe brainwashed). Do you know the difference between resuscitation and resurrection? Do you use resuscitation because you believe the crucified Jesus was resuscitated? What evidence do you have for your belief, if that's the case?
@caveatemp Sorry, I didn't know there was a difference, I went to look it up and Jesus was resurrected (or resurrected himself) according to your faith. To me it doesn't change a lot. Telling me that it was a resurrection rather than a resuscitation doesn't make it any more plausible in my opinion.
@sorawadokokara Listen or read a lecture by NT Wright entitled, "Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?" There is quite a lot of evidence if you are open to hearing it.
@caveatemp Correct, god does need a sacrifice for forgiveness. This is the way god forgives. He also sends us to burn in hell for eternity if we sin & don't ask for forgiveness. I'm glad god has so much "love" in his heart. Caveatemp, I bet you are more compassionate than this god character. This is because god is not real & neither is Jesus. A being that is all-knowing, all-powerful & omnipotent; this is man's reflection of himself. We created god in our own image. It's sad but true.
@TravisVadon God doesn't send us to hell. We go there of our own free will. It wouldn't be hell if there were no conscious choice. The doors of hell are locked by us from the inside. Some would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. There is always a choice. It's sad but true for those that will not accept the authority of God. Let me ask you this question: Did you create yourself? If so, how?
@caveatemp I can't tell if you're really ignorant or you pretend not to know. I can't tell if you're brainwashed in to believing in god or you're trying to brainwash others knowing that there is no god
@TravisVadon Totally agree with with all your posts. I've always been a skeptic, but the bible was the main factor of my conversion towards atheism. The Hebrew Mythology god and its bible characters seem to be each playing out a role similar to those written for theatrical plays. What's insane about this written play is that people actually believe every bit of it to be true. From beginning to end the hand of the evil nature of man is clearly depicted in this fictional theatrical proposition.
@cycorealm35 So how then do you account for evil in the world? Do you deny it? I agree with Lord Acton. Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. You don't agree? Is it simply nature, red in tooth and claw? There is nothing that is evil, simply evolution moving us ever forward to perfection? Will you feel justified killing those less evolved than you?
@TravisVadon Exactly. How omnibenevolent would a God be, if he'd punish those who don't believe in him but who have also committed no crimes or 'sins' to an eternal hell-fire? It doesn't seem very loving to me.
@caveatemp So then god is not all powerful if there needs to be a sacrifice. He is bound to the same laws we are? And I have forgiven people WITHOUT a sacrifice. I don't need a dead goat by my feet to forgive people for some mistakes. And if they are very horrible then naturally they are subject to the law process. What is forgiveness to you? Do you have some "magical" definition besides an act of mercy?
@darkchibicosmos Everybody needs to sacrifice in order to forgive. If someone damages your property you either forgive the transgressor and take the loss (to sacrifice) or you make him pay. You have never forgiven anybody without sacrificing something. If God is a fiction, then don't worry. If God is real then you owe your life to him. On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that God does not exist? Are you absolutely sure? A 10? If so, then don't worry about it.
Sacrifice is subject to terms. And it is possible to forgive the person for making the mistake but asking him to pay or compensate in some ways. Not all acts are sacrificial. Now does this mean everything in life? No, of course not. And actually priests "forgive" people all the time for things that didn't even affect them. How do you reconcile that? And of course no one knows for a fact of it's existence. But even if it did, what do I owe that deity? Nothing at all
@darkchibicosmos A punto! You make my point. Either he pays or you do-- or both! If you accept the premise of an author then you must give him authority, you owe him your life. Nobody has certainty in this life about anything and yet everybody lives by their beliefs. Do you live your life with the certainty that God doesn't exist? How certain are you on a scale of 1 to 10?
Priests may listen to confessions but only God is just to forgive all sins.
But one person paying doesn't entail a sacrifice. I think you are using the word incorrectly is my point. Please study etymology. You actually keep proving my point not the other way around, kid. And having a degree of certainty over something does not indicate its existence. I believe my friend is at the library as she stated but regardless how strong I believe it, doesn't mean she is actually there.And why do priests say "I forgive you my child" if they are not forgiving.
@darkchibicosmos In my dictionary the verb sacrifice means to give up, abandon, surrender, forgo, renounce, forfeit, relinquish, resign, abdicate. If you forgo the just punishment for someone's transgression then you have sacrificed. I agree about certainty. The question still stands: do you live as though you are certain there is no author and your life has no absolute value? Jesus said to forgive sins. That said, we can only forgive sins against us.
@caveatemp What Travis said sums up what I think as well. I also want to ask you something. Can't you forgive someone? Like - just forgive? Do you have to have some sort of recompense? By the way, I thought the Bible actually commands you to forgive people.
@mk2escortvan Say you're walking up to your car and you find someone bashing all your windows in with a baseball bat. A cop comes over and says to you, "Just forgive him, ok? He's sorry he bashed your windows in. Just let it go."
Would you just forgive him with no recompense?
Now if the man with the bat doesn't accept your forgiveness or even recognize your existence how would you feel? By the way, you still have to pay for the repairs.
@caveatemp No, I wouldn't. But some people would - eg: Amish. So it would be possible. And if people can, surely God can. And I'm not sure how I have done anything to hurt God anyway. I didn't bash in his car windows, or hit him. Even if I have hurt him, there was No Intent to do so. If the person tripped, fell and broke my car window, and if they were sorry, then I would forgive them, even if they could not pay.
@mk2escortvan In each scenario you give the windows remain broken. Either you replace the windows or you make the vandal replace them or you drive around without windows. There is no such thing as "just forgiving" without sacrifice. If you forgive then you sacrifice your windows. If you don't forgive then the vandal bears the burden.
You say you are not sure how you have hurt God. Do you believe in God?
@caveatemp No I don't believe in god. I just don't see enough evidence to do so. The best argument I have heard is about how the universe came into being. However, there is then the problem of why God is there. Even if you conclude A god exists, which God? It could even be a deistic god (one who Just created the universe and then did nothing more). You're explanation is very good. But I wonder what injury I have caused god. If it is merely offense, continued...
@mk2escortvan If you can accept the premise of God who creates the universe then it follows that all sins perpetrated by humanity are ultimately against God. This is how Jesus, the incarnation of God, forgave people their sins- sins that were not specifically against him. This is what enraged the Pharisees and why they had him killed.
@caveatemp No, that doesn't necessarily follow. In the example of a deist god, sin against it would be meaningless. It would be pretty much the same as there being no god. If there is a personal god, we would still need to establish it cares about sin. In reply to your other point: even if there is emotional pain, if someone apologises sincerely, then I don't think there is any real sacrifice for me to forgive them. We haven't apologised, but I probably would if I could.
@mk2escortvan Why did you remove comments? They come to my email anyway, you know. I don't see how you can't understand this. It's mathematically fundamental. It's G + W = H, God plus God's will equals humankind (the universe)
H would not exist were it not for G + W.
H is the sum of G + W.
This is not an argument for the existence of God. This is only given the premise that God created the universe. Deist or theist the equation is the same.
@caveatemp Nothing you just said seems to suggest that sin would matter to god. Why would it? He/she/it is god. Why would it care about human sin? God + God's will = Human kind. Firstly, humankind does not equal the universe. What about everything else in the universe? If I create something - maybe a painting. Is it true to say Me + My will = painting? No, it's nonsense. I deleted them because I thought that those two points were enough at one time.
@mk2escortvan My point wasn't that God cares about sin, although I do think God does. My point was that given the premise that God created everything then every sin would be against God. Yes, your equation is correct: Me + My will = painting. Except God's equation had to have come first otherwise you wouldn't be here to paint the painting.Sin matters to God. By analogy, wouldn't you be affected if someone destroyed your painting? Or better yet, if you had a child and she was hurt?
@caveatemp I suppose that depends on how you define omnipotence. God cannot make a spherical cube or a straight circle. Does that make him less than omnipotent? They are logical contradictions.
@caveatemp I'm not even sure... what are you trying to show with that 'equation'? G + W = H. How does that show that there is a personal god who cares about sin?
@mk2escortvan Yes, I know humankind does not equal the universe. The math is still the same. It's just that humankind is a subset within the universe.
Do you have children? A spouse or partner? A pet? If you would be affected by them being hurt, don't you think God would have at least just as much if not infinitely more deep feelings for his creation? Why would God's feelings be any less than ours?
@caveatemp Forgive me for jumping in.. but this topic of emotions; do you actually think a deity possesses or needs emotions? It seems rather unnecessary for a superior being which does not require motivating factors to utilize emotions at all. A being of purely absolute existence requires no such thing as emotional responses. I know this goes against traditional conceptions of god but it makes more sense. Emotions are produced by chemical reactions in our brains. God needs them not.
@AtomicKinetic12 I don't think of emotions as a fault, or a hindrance to knowledge. Without them we are left with only scientism which denies evidence outside of known natural laws a priori. Therefore God would be vastly more emotional in my view. Perfect emotions. The question of need is something else entirely. God didn't need us and yet, here we are. The question of need at this level loses all meaning. We can't be talking about the struggle for survival.
@caveatemp Emotions have a use. They are functional. I would ask what function an emotion has with a deity. Ofcourse your conception of emotions is probably more than that. But if I think about a supreme being; a vastly more emotional being is the farthest thing I think of. I see a deity acting or actualizing his will with more efficiency than a mere human being acting upon his emotional nature. But its just a thought.
@AtomicKinetic12 Efficiency, like need, is a concept that breaks down when you get to God's level. Efficient for what? Search 'The Dalai Lama on Technological Change' here on Youtube. He shares your idea. He says he envisions a world where humans can eliminate emotion. Why do you think human emotion is less than "efficient"- and again, less than efficient for what? There are some hidden agendas that maybe even you are not aware of in what you are saying.
@caveatemp If you look at the history of mysticism and other older religious practices and philosophies the one thing that is a recurring theme is the submission and relinquishing of the ego. The idea of becoming one with god somehow involves this process. Emotions will follow as well in that sense once the ego is gone. And emotional reactions/motivations would be less than efficient for actualizing your will. For taking action. Not that I advocate this.
@AtomicKinetic12 The concept of the ego was invented by Freud. His system is inherently dualistic, dividing man into all these fragments. Now transhumanism is about eliminating certain parts of humanity, like emotion. "Less efficient for actualizing your will." There is so much assumed in that statement.
You are making faith statements that are much more radical and unfounded than theism and I don't think you can even recognize them.
@caveatemp Are you stating that an individual that is highly emotional has more clarity than an individual that is more rational...? I believe there are many examples throughout all of our lives which demonstrate the exact opposite. It seems rather well founded to me. I do not require faith to make the statement that emotional decisions can lead to outcomes we did not intend to happen. And the mystic tradition may not have used the term "ego" but they surely had the concept.
@AtomicKinetic12 Rationality is not opposed to emotionality. Irrationality is rationality's opposite. A man without emotions is a robot. I agree with Krishnamurti when he said, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Psychopaths are characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deception. They seek positions of power and have great clarity in pursuing their twisted agendas.
@caveatemp You're forgetting the part about abnegating your ego. Power and deception play no part in what I stated prior. All of those things are to be lost when the ego dissipates. The natural response for any human is to go against the idea ofcourse. That is only your ego's attachment to individualized experiences. The maintaining of itself. In no way shape or form does the abnegation of the ego & emotions reflect this modern "sick" society. It is quite the opposite.
@AtomicKinetic12 Abnegation of ego and emotions is a huge leap of faith. How do you know it can be done and how do you know you won't be in a hellish existence if you could achieve it? What evidence do you have?
@caveatemp Oh no I for one cannot tell you how to achieve it or what the experience will be like. But the idea of a hellish existence is not what I see following once I have lost all fear. To be at peace is what most of these mystic traditions profess. They see it as a way to become one with god/universe. Nothing seems to indicate that this would be a negative experience. You are to lose yourself and become like the absolute. I know; alot abstract jargon. But there is something to it.
@AtomicKinetic12 What makes my life meaningful now are my loved ones, the diversity of human interaction, community, and all life on this planet. The idea of losing all individuality, losing my sense of community, losing bio-diversity is hell to me. The God I worship in is not one but triune in nature. Becoming one is not something I want. It reminds me of an old Woody Allen joke about graduates of the class on oneness can then move up to two-ness. Losing fear, yes. Individuality, no.
@caveatemp Again.. a mystic would say you are attached and afraid. Simply not ready. Once you lose the ego and fear none of those things you love will matter. Even in your Christian tradition there is a mystic thread which Jesus expresses in many different ways. Think about the passages when he ask that you abandon your family and loved ones to just follow him and him alone. I'm sure you know those verses word for word. Turning the other cheek; another small example.
@AtomicKinetic12 Jesus did not say to abandon family. If you're referring to what I think you are he was talking about how love for God should supersede all other loves. It was not an anti-family, anti/community message. Read Revelation 21. It's about the city of God coming down out of heaven- not supreme oneness where there is no individuality but a city of God. The problem is that the God you don't believe in is who you want to be one with. That won't work.
@caveatemp lol... no. That wouldn't make sense to try to be one with a god I don't believe in. And the verse I was talking about was Luke 14:26. What I'm stating is that the god you believe in is being described in ways which makes him untenable. I'm trying in all honesty to stay open to the idea of god. But it must make sense. There must be a real sense of transcendence felt when conceiving of him. One of the elements to be transcended is the ego. And even your god has an ego.
@AtomicKinetic12 I guess we must agree to disagree. I appreciate the dialogue though. Your wording is key. I don't believe conceiving God is possible. Perceiving God is possible. This is a clear linguistic difference. Transcendence is synonymous with surpassing. What you are saying is that in order to think up or devise a god you must surpass that god. The statement is redundant and irrational.
@caveatemp Yes I meant "perceive"not conceive... thank you. But I believe you got lost somewhere. I wasn't talking about surpassing a god. It's about reaching god. Experiencing him truly. The god you believe in is not that one I think exist. Or he isn't being described as purely as he can be. Without the limiting factors humans place upon him. Can you tell me that you have honestly "perceived" any of the things which relate to how your god is described. And I mean perceived directly.
@AtomicKinetic12 Yes I can and no I don't want to end the conversation. However, I can't relate it to you in the comment space provided. We'd have to exchange emails.
@caveatemp Anyway, the Bible tells us to forgive people. We are supposed to turn the other cheek, and forgive people even if they do not ask for forgiveness. It is unbelievable to think that the Bible would tell us to do something that even God cannot.
@mk2escortvan God has forgiven. Jesus, the incarnation of God, has forgiven at a great price. The problem is when people do not believe in God in the first place. If they don't believe In God, how can God's forgiveness have any effect on them? It's analogous to a vandal who doesn't realize his breaking the windows will have any effect on the owner. The vandal doesn't even believe the owner of the car exists.
@caveatemp But I see what you are saying, about the offender not realising the offendee exists. I've been trying to be objective, and I have read (bits of) the Bible (it is huge), and talked to my Christian friends. I just cannot see enough evidence for it. I can Almost believe in a creator, but I cannot even come close to believing in any specific God. Thanks for explaining things a bit better though.
@caveatemp Yea, some full retards exclaim " we are born into sin" as if simply being a human baby is wrong in itself and we are sinful b/c of a supposed Adam and Eve's sins and not our own actions. Funny shit really. Sins are just guilt trips to coerce you into doing something that someone else wants you to do. Never met a rational person who believed in magical sky daddy who blames YOU for HIS creations.
@1misanthropist When I click on your name I get a page that says, "This page is not available." Do I therefore assume you are a robot and not really deserving an honest reply?
As an atheist, I question what would become of people, if they did not have a religious reason to meet or get together at least once a week.
I don't see atheists meeting once a week to celebrate life or freedom from religious.
One does not celebrate non-belief. So, if religion were to disappear tomorrow, what would pull large groups of people together socially? Would we have more sporting events?
This is the same argument and conclusion I came to 15 years ago when I left christianity. This video sums it up in a nutshell why christianity is a total load of bullshit and makes no sense. If the christian god does exist as the bible portrays him - hes an asshole. Wake up christians and throw off the bonds of the fairy tale.
I'll just be wasting my breath, but oh well. I AM THE DEVIL! FEEL MY WRATH!! LOL. No wait, I mean, I AM GOD! FEEL MY WRATH!! No...yes, that's right. GOD kills everyone in the bible not the devil so I would def feel gods wrath more than the devils. He makes people burn in fire for eternity for having sex before marriage, wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, for cutting your hair or shaving, or not going to church. Hmm, I'd rather kick it with the devil.
Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slave holders. Keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do.
@TheAfrokun Tracie Harris, "Tracie is one of the newer faces on the Atheist Experience. She's a former fundamentalist who brings a common sense perspective to our show."
@TravisVadon poetry and music to my ears. These people are putting words to the emotions that a lot of people are still struggling to define. Cheers friend.
Thank man, that he was wise and unshackled himself from primitive beliefs and eradicated smallpox.........saving hundreds of millions of lives
Woe to those who are still shackled, for they will get left behind....but still rape from science in their time of need, for they know their beliefs are false Wiseman 17:4
hahaaaah BRILIANT! You know, I became an atheist AFTER I read the bible. Even though we, orthodox christians don't give a damn about what is written in that book, I read it because I wanted to know more about god and jesus. And guess what.....
In the bible there is murder, genocide, rape, incest, torture, slavery, theft, conquest etc and these atrocities are are either committed by god, commanded by god, endorsed by god, or tolerated by god. Based on this, I suggest that god is actually the evil character in the bible and that the average human is orders of magnitude more moral than the christian god, when they're not under the influence of superstition and ignorance.
Does anybody know the episode where Matt is talking about the sketchiness of Jesus raising the dead? Matt says something like "..Boy that's awfully strange that no one else recorded that, I mean you have a graveyard full of zombies walking into downtown Jerusalem and nobody says anything?!" If anybody knows what episode this is on please tell me! Been looking for it for MONTHS
@auroraman56 *to the world than just the physical and natural. Something beyond the natural must exist to explain the world's origin. I believe that God is the most logical answer.
@1Gokartgeek1 or in short hand "if i do not understand why something exists or happens then it must be God" , great argument... And please do not say it is a Logical position, it was a position held by primitive ancestors , Mankind should of collectively broke free from dragging around such comfort blankets by now.. Just go outside on a clear night, look up at the stars and keep looking and realise how insignificant this little rock is in space and how Gods fizzle into nothing as a result..
@amojak You could possibly conclude that I am using the "God of the gaps" argument, but this argument assumes that there is no other evidence for an intelligent designer. However, evidence supporting intelligent design does exist. For example, Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's specified complexity both point to an intelligent source. Therefore, when I "look up at the stars," I make, as Dembski says, a "inference of design." I see the working of a designer in the natural world.
NO !!!!!! There is a very big difference between Science and Evolution. I know about scientific research and support Science. Atheists and evolutionist try to hide their LIES behind science. Science is the study of matters and they do practical research. But Evolution is a theory on paper only. Evolution is illusion based on ideas and thoughts. There is NO proof of FIRST LIFE in evolution. Scientist still trying to know the origin of First life. But evolutionists already started to believe.
realtyofislam 1 week ago
@realtyofislam I understand it's hard to grasp such a monumental concept such as evolution, lots of people can't. Try to answer these questions, it might shed some light if you answer honestly:
1.) Why do we have a tailbone?
2.) Why do we have an appendix?
3.) Why do people get their wisdom teeth removed?
4.) 20,000 species on this planet go extinct every year, why?
5.) Do these extinct species get replaced?
6.) How does bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
TravisVadon 1 week ago 2
'god' is not meaningfully defined, ergo it is 100% certain, by simple tautology, that 'god' does not refer to anything that exists (or that does not).
but why are people so universally prone to the delusion that 'god' (like 'soul', 'spirit', etc.) is an intelligible, coherent concept? afterall, humanity has invented 1,000s of crazy religions and "gods" in only 30,000 years - something is wrong with them to make them believe such nutty shit. i think it has something to do with that people...
ExUnoPlures 4 weeks ago
...so often call 'god' a "he," just like they would a male person - i think it is man who made "god" in his/her image, and not vice versa.
for more info demonstrating why it is correct to say "god" is a meaningless, incohrent pseudoconcept, and for more info on the psychological explanation for the near universal human delusion that "disembodied minds" such as "gods" and "spirits" are plausible, please see the links in the video description here:
/watch?v=07j11_-eYrQ
peas
ExUnoPlures 4 weeks ago
@ExUnoPlures
One might argue that 1.love is not clearly defined, so - by your logic - it doesn't exist; 2.to some people/religions god(s) is/are defined well enough.
Also, god was not always a "he" - in matriarchal times god was a "she".
Having countless religions also doesn't disprove that there might be a true one there might be a true god.
The thing is, a "true god" was never demonstrated with any evidence to exist. And once we get presented with the particular claims - the real fun begins.
grozde 3 weeks ago
1) i think the only way one has any idea of love is to think in terms of the material (which includes psychological) world (e.g. you love your child by taking care of it and feeling sad when it is hurt). just think about the insanity that christians are asked to believe: that "god" is loving and yet created hell, flooded the world, and commanded slaughter and sacrifice - only when love is made meaningless can it accomodate such horror.
...
ExUnoPlures 3 weeks ago
2) whether the christian "god" is thought of as a "he" or a "she", i think most would agree that it is not an organism or gendered in any physical, biological sense. the point is that they are using words that clearly don't apply and that the words they use hint strongly that they are suffering from psychological delusion (specifically, the delusional belief in the plausibility of disembodied mind).
...
ExUnoPlures 3 weeks ago
3) of course, the fact that there are thousands of necessarily false religions and "gods" doesn't itself prove that christianity is false. however, it does provide some very good evidence in favor the fact, in so far as it hints at a resolution for that nagging question of how billions could be so deluded by such fantastic nonsense.
ExUnoPlures 3 weeks ago
@ExUnoPluresChristianity is demonstrably wrong. My point was that some other religion "might be" true...
Stupid and impossible "theories" tend to be somehow more attractive...
Plus, there are the factors such as politics, economy, etc....
grozde 3 weeks ago
@ExUnoPlures
There were/are other gods, too. Some of them were female. Yahweh, on the other hand, IS described as a male. It makes no sense, but hey - it's not their first time ;-))
On the other hand, I realize that they have to call him SOMEHOW, so "he" was probably fit enough for the times when they came up with him...
grozde 3 weeks ago
@ExUnoPlures
I agree - but this still is not a definition. :-)
grozde 3 weeks ago
Rabble rabble rabble!!!
jcoveiro84 1 month ago
wouldn't it take an objective moral "lens" to know if something is absolutely right or wrong and thus prove the existence of an authoritative moral law giver (God)? On atheism whose to say what is ultimately right or wrong? what if I disagree? i think its funny how Matt calls God evil. lol Matt I love you. :)
thebigboxl 1 month ago
@thebigboxl
Read the comment I made on this video to sickopath.
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
@finalfantasy8911 then this entire argument Matt presented falls apart because im equally justified in saying God is holy and just while Matt calls God evil. It's just his opinion and my opinion is just as valid as his opinion.
thebigboxl 1 month ago
@thebigboxl
Well here's something important to know. Everyone (atheists & religious) is to come to an agreement on how they define "morality"; an understanding of that concept. In one word, morality=rightousness. In accordance with that definition, the religious claim God is perfect in morality. Atheist Matt challenges that in accordance with that same moral definition through logical reasoning. You can say god is holy, Matt can say god is evil; but are your standards of morality the same?
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
This is one of the very best episodes. It should end all debate in my oppinion. But of course it has not. sigh
NonProphetess 1 month ago
But Why does the Universe Exist?
Airlightf 1 month ago
Wait, wait, wait. "That is not right, that is not moral." Says who or what exactly? I mean, seriously, what makes anything moral or immoral? It's just a feeling you have, just a response or emotional reaction to something, an uncomfortable state. It might not be pleasant, but what standard are you presenting to say that murder or rape is abhorrent? Not to say that it isn't, but do you have anything that can clearly say without question that this is so? Science or evidence?
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333
In the most intelligent atheistic worldview, there is no objective factor to determine the value of right & wrong; all that is left to the only ones who care: humans. Making morality subjective of course. I'll let you in on some cosmic truth. All morality is contrived & equal; although moral values tend to vary in pros/cons as well. There is no standard, its a free-for-all, you do whatever you want & no one can say otherwise. And with power, your ideals can get more respect.
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
@finalfantasy8911 Well that's sort of my point here. Atheists on the one hand claim that there is no God, no objective morality, and we just sort of figure it out (while of course denying that they are immoral). However, while having no standard with which to judge immoral from moral acts, they then condemn passages in The Bible as clearly, clearly immoral, wicked, and evil. I'm essentially calling them out on an incompatibility in their reasoning.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333Well here's something important to know. Everyone (atheists & religious) is to come to an agreement on how they define "morality"; an understanding of that concept. In one word, morality=rightousness. In accordance with that definition, the religious claim God is perfect in morality. Atheist Matt challenges that in accordance with that same moral definition through logical reasoning. You can say god is holy, Matt can say god is evil; but are your standards of morality the same?
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
I was a individual with faith in cristianity, but how can you not abandone your religion... Whatever it is, when you watch this wise guys talking on the show. Thank you so much guys. I was blinded by religion but now i can see, i was lost, but now i got my life back thanks to this show.
gigihentz1 1 month ago
It kind of annoys me when they cut off the caller, and keep rebutting their points. Additional discussion on a tangent is cool, but if they're still arguing the points, the caller should be able to respond. It's always more satisfying when the caller faces their cognitive dissonance and either says they'll think about it, or just jumps straight to the yelling (like the "punch your fat head for Jesus" caller).
zulmia 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you're a Christian...
you're probably a racist,
bigot, hate-filled, intolerant,
misogynist, homophobic idiot....
but other than those things,
you're probably a good person
monkeypeopleofearth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Subscribe to atheistmusicchannel if you like good atheist music
AtheistMusicChannel 2 months ago
Comment removed
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
A logical argument? More like a one sided berating.
Sure it makes sense but why do you ask someone a question then cut them off and yell over them?
1stNightingale 2 months ago
I always ask "believers" if a voice came out of the sky and told you to kill your son.."would you?" If they try to justify their answer with that question, I know I'm dealing with a irrational and illogical quack!
AntonTheSpot 2 months ago
@AntonTheSpot Perspective: whole cultures throughout history have been deeply involved in religious human sacrifice. In the Bible we find Yahweh giving a definitive no to human sacrifice.
A better question: would Americans participate in war after war when there is no immanent danger to their country? The answer is yes and it is called human sacrifice.
caveatemp 2 months ago
Very good 100% Atheist Proud of it
ShiniGamiSTi 2 months ago
I love this. I can actually hear the atheists talk without whiny, uneducated believers complaining - making background noise for the logical, realistic non-believers.
roffokun 2 months ago
Haha that's so accurate I love it_
tinkerbell5729 2 months ago
It creeps me out when Christioans start talking about being bathed in the blood of the lamb and whatnot. Please don't bathe me in blood, no matter what the magical properties you think it has.
andrewc2768 2 months ago
Listening to this again I can't believe Matt studied Christianity. It seems he overlooks the basic fact that Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God. He ascribes the cruelty released on Jesus to God the Father. He accepts the premise of the Father but not the Son. It's like saying your tricycle with the broken wheel doesn't work because of the design, not the fact that it has a broken wheel. It's a straw man argument.
caveatemp 2 months ago
Just commenting on your comment. If you click "see all" and then arrange by thread you can find what you wrote. If not, have a fine new year and ciao.
caveatemp 2 months ago
If life is what you make it, then why should I settle for a compromise, concerning morality? Why not go for complete self-indulgence? (Basic example) If I'm lost out in wilderness and starving and come across 1 piece of fruit, but also another starving traveler, why share; when I can take the entire piece of fruit for myself, even if it means killing the desperate other traveler? After all, I'm going to get away with the murder, while also gaining a whole fruit. What cons are there?
finalfantasy8911 2 months ago
@finalfantasy8911 Morality is intrinsically pluralistic: when you talk about 'being moral' or 'having morals', you're talking about thinking outside one's own needs and wants and being concerned about how your actions affect the lives of those around you.
Asking the question "Why shouldn't my morality be self-indulgence" is confused, because it's basically saying "Why shouldn't my morality be not morality?"
TheGeneralCritic 2 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic
If your a person with "positive" morals; like "treat others the way you want to be treated", etc and such, then wouldn't you ask the SAME QUESTION!?
"Why shouldn't my morality be not morality?"
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
@finalfantasy8911 Because it is an illogical question.
TheGeneralCritic 1 month ago
@finalfantasy8911 In the case of 'lost in the wilderness, find fruit, share with other starving man', basic empathy can be a prime motivator for helping those in need. As for practical reasons, it's better to be with someone in the wilderness than by oneself; what if you're attacked?
It's no accident that we seem to have an instinctive ability to work together in groups; evolutionarily speaking, all those that went off by themselves and relied only on themselves GOT EATEN.
TheGeneralCritic 2 months ago
@TheGeneralCritic And those now outside of the elite group of eugenicists that rule the world are in risk of being eaten. But if we learn from history, we know that those that serve the elite are eaten first.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp ...what?
TheGeneralCritic 2 months ago
@finalfantasy8911 erm, empathy? why do you need some ultimate reason to do good? surely knowing that person is going to suffer and die is good enough reason to share the fruit. my conscience would eat me alive if i just walked away, and im sure yours would to. believers like to think a lack of god means no reason to do good, but when the situation arises, its your conscience and sense of empathy that won't let you walk away.
callumnik117 2 months ago
@callumnik117
I've lost both my conscience and sense of empathy. Without a god, I am truly free to do whatever I wish. Sure the absense of a god is not particularly an excuse to throw one's conscience away; but I find humans very annoying and quite worthless. Like roaches found at an abandoned hotel. Just look at our government today and history, for a start. The strong rule the weak, and theres nothing to bring a "happy ending". So let man rot back into the earth.
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
@callumnik117
Heard of George Carlin? Watch him on Youtube and listen to some information you MUST know about.
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
@finalfantasy8911 big fan of Carlin (RIP). i have emotions that are hard-wired into me. empathy is one. i cant turn it off regardless of the fact i believe in very little. in fact empathy is an evolved trait of a social species so its independent of what we think anyway. i might agree that we're all worthless but if you can still walk away in the situation then you may have an issue there, only psychos don't feel empathy.
callumnik117 1 month ago
@callumnik117
Do you feel empathy when a serial killer is condemned to life in prison? Or when a cannibal/murderer is sentenced to die?
finalfantasy8911 1 month ago
@finalfantasy8911 how does a cannibal compare to some guy who's hungry? living in a black and white view of the world where we are either all worthwhile or worthless is just lazy and small minded. each situation needs weighing up individually. its a lot easier just to make a blanket statement that we are all cockroaches. and not only that but it seems as though your suggesting that we could have been any other way. its your expectations that haven't been met. well sorry to disappoint you.
callumnik117 1 month ago
2:19-2:24
Isn't evil and immorality just as associated with humanity as goodness and morality? And if the universe is truly ammoral, then so is every product of it; that includes humans. And if everythings a free-for-all and your life is completely at the mercy of chance and your actions and the actions of others, and all morals contrived and also equal, I'm going to create a moral system strictly revolved around myself, even if it means negative repercussions on others.(1)
finalfantasy8911 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's astonishing to me that people believe in god. Read and be well.
theoryofjack 2 months ago
I wish everybody was like these two. The world would be a much happier place for everybody. Can't we all understand that religions hurt us instead of doing good ?
boyka1408 2 months ago 2
If you saw a group of people slaughtering a man and saying they did something bad, but because during his lifetime that guy was making miracles all they have to do is making a statue of the slaughtered body an pray at it and that means they're forgiven, would you say that'd be a legitimate religion, they must not be taken to jail and all of them are sane?
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
I have a question for christian people, so I can understand better where they're coming from. If you were there at the time of the crucifixion but everybody decided to stop the execution and left and you were the only person left in the entire world who could do that, would you have crucified Jesus yourself?
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
If you wanna slam a Christian, read the Bible, take it in, all of it. I have not yet seen an Atheist who has, only people from other religions.
IHazRhythMIW 2 months ago
@IHazRhythMIW I hope you're not implying that Matt & Tracie (the two in this video) have NOT read the bible. If you are, then I hate to disappoint you, both of them have decades of research & knowledge about the bible (they were both very religious before this show). Matt can quote bible versus like it's nothing. As for me, I read the bible, this is why I am now atheist. I wanted to believe but after reading The Old Testament, it's impossible, that shit is beyond science fiction.
TravisVadon 2 months ago 22
@TravisVadon Do you expect texts thousands of years old to read like the New York Times from 2012? You should be open to the idea that a particular text might not be teaching you what you think it is. I've corresponded with Matt. I can tell you for certain that he misconstrues what Christianity teaches at it's most fundamental levels. He may have gone to school but he doesn't grasp the most basic tenets of Christian theology.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@IHazRhythMIW well you clearly need to look a little harder... for a start the two in the video most definitely have. I personally have. oh and btw if you want to slam my belief about the magical purple leprechaun/unicorn hybrid who created the universe then you better read all 500,000 pages of his holy book... some things are so patently untrue that reading every little absurdity is unnecessary.
MrRhyssteele 2 months ago
@IHazRhythMIW Fucking idiot haha... I read the bible and it made me believe in god even less!!!
noble381297 2 months ago
@IHazRhythMIW I am yet to see many christians read the bible fully as well. The Apostle at the church my family goes to has not read all of it, and when asked says that the bible is too many pieces to put together. In other words christians, like SOME atheiests, read what they want and argue those points, ignoring the others, but that is the definition of ignorance.
Phillz91 2 months ago
A great example of two people completely in denial of how forgiveness works. Nobody can "just forgive." Do they think that forgiveness is a magical incantation? That you just say these words and *poof* forgiveness happens? For forgiveness to happen, someone always has to suffer, to take a loss. This is universal.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Let's say you call me an idiot, then you say sorry and I forgive you. According to you now somebody has to suffer and take a loss. Who?
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@sorawadokokara The one who forgives must pay. You have been insulted. Does it hurt? Ask yourself what would happen if you did not forgive me. Would you brood about it and shun me? Would you run down my name to everyone you met? Would you sue me for slander? In these cases you would make me pay.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp If you were to forgive somebody would you be required to slaughter someone or something to do that? Do you think the crucifixion is not gory? That is suitable to be shown to a child?
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@sorawadokokara Thank God crucifixion is not a one size fits all punishment. Is that how it works in your mind? You should read the book again. Jesus says he lays his own life down of his own free will. He alone has the power to do this and then take it back up. God doesn't slaughter anyone. We brought death into the world. At least if you don't believe you should get your theology straight.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Oh yeah, how could I possibly forget the special pleading fallacy. It's wrong but if god does it then it's right.
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@sorawadokokara Jesus is the incarnation of God. Jesus takes on the suffering. It's not God inflicting the punishment on Jesus. I'm not brainwashing anyone. I made a simple comment on the video. You chose to engage me in conversation. Do you feel brainwashed? Do you take google to be the ultimate authority in the world? I choose to think for myself.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Well, that's rich.
Thelordisgayandmerry 2 months ago
@caveatemp It takes more brainwashing to believe a dead body resuscitated and you must worship it than to believe that dead's dead
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@sorawadokokara Do you know anything about the subject? Read N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God laying out the historic evidence for the resurrection. Maybe mocking gives you pleasure but it makes for extremely dull conversation on my part.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp What part of it was mocking? If you refer to the brainwashing part I wasn't mocking. I actually really meant it. If I didn't believe that then I'd be a theist, don't you think?
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@sorawadokokara Well, I guess I can't tell if you're ignorant or just mocking (or maybe brainwashed). Do you know the difference between resuscitation and resurrection? Do you use resuscitation because you believe the crucified Jesus was resuscitated? What evidence do you have for your belief, if that's the case?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Sorry, I didn't know there was a difference, I went to look it up and Jesus was resurrected (or resurrected himself) according to your faith. To me it doesn't change a lot. Telling me that it was a resurrection rather than a resuscitation doesn't make it any more plausible in my opinion.
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@sorawadokokara Listen or read a lecture by NT Wright entitled, "Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?" There is quite a lot of evidence if you are open to hearing it.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Correct, god does need a sacrifice for forgiveness. This is the way god forgives. He also sends us to burn in hell for eternity if we sin & don't ask for forgiveness. I'm glad god has so much "love" in his heart. Caveatemp, I bet you are more compassionate than this god character. This is because god is not real & neither is Jesus. A being that is all-knowing, all-powerful & omnipotent; this is man's reflection of himself. We created god in our own image. It's sad but true.
TravisVadon 2 months ago 8
@TravisVadon God doesn't send us to hell. We go there of our own free will. It wouldn't be hell if there were no conscious choice. The doors of hell are locked by us from the inside. Some would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. There is always a choice. It's sad but true for those that will not accept the authority of God. Let me ask you this question: Did you create yourself? If so, how?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp I can't tell if you're really ignorant or you pretend not to know. I can't tell if you're brainwashed in to believing in god or you're trying to brainwash others knowing that there is no god
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@caveatemp p.s. If you don't know something. Friggin google it!
sorawadokokara 2 months ago
@TravisVadon Totally agree with with all your posts. I've always been a skeptic, but the bible was the main factor of my conversion towards atheism. The Hebrew Mythology god and its bible characters seem to be each playing out a role similar to those written for theatrical plays. What's insane about this written play is that people actually believe every bit of it to be true. From beginning to end the hand of the evil nature of man is clearly depicted in this fictional theatrical proposition.
cycorealm35 2 months ago
@cycorealm35 So how then do you account for evil in the world? Do you deny it? I agree with Lord Acton. Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. You don't agree? Is it simply nature, red in tooth and claw? There is nothing that is evil, simply evolution moving us ever forward to perfection? Will you feel justified killing those less evolved than you?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@TravisVadon Exactly. How omnibenevolent would a God be, if he'd punish those who don't believe in him but who have also committed no crimes or 'sins' to an eternal hell-fire? It doesn't seem very loving to me.
RatherCynical 2 months ago
@caveatemp So then god is not all powerful if there needs to be a sacrifice. He is bound to the same laws we are? And I have forgiven people WITHOUT a sacrifice. I don't need a dead goat by my feet to forgive people for some mistakes. And if they are very horrible then naturally they are subject to the law process. What is forgiveness to you? Do you have some "magical" definition besides an act of mercy?
darkchibicosmos 2 months ago
@darkchibicosmos Everybody needs to sacrifice in order to forgive. If someone damages your property you either forgive the transgressor and take the loss (to sacrifice) or you make him pay. You have never forgiven anybody without sacrificing something. If God is a fiction, then don't worry. If God is real then you owe your life to him. On a scale of 1 to 10, how sure are you that God does not exist? Are you absolutely sure? A 10? If so, then don't worry about it.
caveatemp 2 months ago
Sacrifice is subject to terms. And it is possible to forgive the person for making the mistake but asking him to pay or compensate in some ways. Not all acts are sacrificial. Now does this mean everything in life? No, of course not. And actually priests "forgive" people all the time for things that didn't even affect them. How do you reconcile that? And of course no one knows for a fact of it's existence. But even if it did, what do I owe that deity? Nothing at all
darkchibicosmos 2 months ago
@darkchibicosmos A punto! You make my point. Either he pays or you do-- or both! If you accept the premise of an author then you must give him authority, you owe him your life. Nobody has certainty in this life about anything and yet everybody lives by their beliefs. Do you live your life with the certainty that God doesn't exist? How certain are you on a scale of 1 to 10?
Priests may listen to confessions but only God is just to forgive all sins.
caveatemp 2 months ago
But one person paying doesn't entail a sacrifice. I think you are using the word incorrectly is my point. Please study etymology. You actually keep proving my point not the other way around, kid. And having a degree of certainty over something does not indicate its existence. I believe my friend is at the library as she stated but regardless how strong I believe it, doesn't mean she is actually there.And why do priests say "I forgive you my child" if they are not forgiving.
darkchibicosmos 2 months ago
@darkchibicosmos In my dictionary the verb sacrifice means to give up, abandon, surrender, forgo, renounce, forfeit, relinquish, resign, abdicate. If you forgo the just punishment for someone's transgression then you have sacrificed. I agree about certainty. The question still stands: do you live as though you are certain there is no author and your life has no absolute value? Jesus said to forgive sins. That said, we can only forgive sins against us.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp What Travis said sums up what I think as well. I also want to ask you something. Can't you forgive someone? Like - just forgive? Do you have to have some sort of recompense? By the way, I thought the Bible actually commands you to forgive people.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan Say you're walking up to your car and you find someone bashing all your windows in with a baseball bat. A cop comes over and says to you, "Just forgive him, ok? He's sorry he bashed your windows in. Just let it go."
Would you just forgive him with no recompense?
Now if the man with the bat doesn't accept your forgiveness or even recognize your existence how would you feel? By the way, you still have to pay for the repairs.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp No, I wouldn't. But some people would - eg: Amish. So it would be possible. And if people can, surely God can. And I'm not sure how I have done anything to hurt God anyway. I didn't bash in his car windows, or hit him. Even if I have hurt him, there was No Intent to do so. If the person tripped, fell and broke my car window, and if they were sorry, then I would forgive them, even if they could not pay.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan In each scenario you give the windows remain broken. Either you replace the windows or you make the vandal replace them or you drive around without windows. There is no such thing as "just forgiving" without sacrifice. If you forgive then you sacrifice your windows. If you don't forgive then the vandal bears the burden.
You say you are not sure how you have hurt God. Do you believe in God?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp No I don't believe in god. I just don't see enough evidence to do so. The best argument I have heard is about how the universe came into being. However, there is then the problem of why God is there. Even if you conclude A god exists, which God? It could even be a deistic god (one who Just created the universe and then did nothing more). You're explanation is very good. But I wonder what injury I have caused god. If it is merely offense, continued...
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan If you can accept the premise of God who creates the universe then it follows that all sins perpetrated by humanity are ultimately against God. This is how Jesus, the incarnation of God, forgave people their sins- sins that were not specifically against him. This is what enraged the Pharisees and why they had him killed.
caveatemp 2 months ago
Comment removed
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
Comment removed
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@caveatemp No, that doesn't necessarily follow. In the example of a deist god, sin against it would be meaningless. It would be pretty much the same as there being no god. If there is a personal god, we would still need to establish it cares about sin. In reply to your other point: even if there is emotional pain, if someone apologises sincerely, then I don't think there is any real sacrifice for me to forgive them. We haven't apologised, but I probably would if I could.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan Why did you remove comments? They come to my email anyway, you know. I don't see how you can't understand this. It's mathematically fundamental. It's G + W = H, God plus God's will equals humankind (the universe)
H would not exist were it not for G + W.
H is the sum of G + W.
This is not an argument for the existence of God. This is only given the premise that God created the universe. Deist or theist the equation is the same.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Nothing you just said seems to suggest that sin would matter to god. Why would it? He/she/it is god. Why would it care about human sin? God + God's will = Human kind. Firstly, humankind does not equal the universe. What about everything else in the universe? If I create something - maybe a painting. Is it true to say Me + My will = painting? No, it's nonsense. I deleted them because I thought that those two points were enough at one time.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan My point wasn't that God cares about sin, although I do think God does. My point was that given the premise that God created everything then every sin would be against God. Yes, your equation is correct: Me + My will = painting. Except God's equation had to have come first otherwise you wouldn't be here to paint the painting.Sin matters to God. By analogy, wouldn't you be affected if someone destroyed your painting? Or better yet, if you had a child and she was hurt?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp I suppose that depends on how you define omnipotence. God cannot make a spherical cube or a straight circle. Does that make him less than omnipotent? They are logical contradictions.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Ok. Sorry for calling it nonsense. Yes, I would be upset if the painting were destroyed or a child of mine were hurt. I see your point.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@caveatemp I'm not even sure... what are you trying to show with that 'equation'? G + W = H. How does that show that there is a personal god who cares about sin?
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan Yes, I know humankind does not equal the universe. The math is still the same. It's just that humankind is a subset within the universe.
Do you have children? A spouse or partner? A pet? If you would be affected by them being hurt, don't you think God would have at least just as much if not infinitely more deep feelings for his creation? Why would God's feelings be any less than ours?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp Forgive me for jumping in.. but this topic of emotions; do you actually think a deity possesses or needs emotions? It seems rather unnecessary for a superior being which does not require motivating factors to utilize emotions at all. A being of purely absolute existence requires no such thing as emotional responses. I know this goes against traditional conceptions of god but it makes more sense. Emotions are produced by chemical reactions in our brains. God needs them not.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 I don't think of emotions as a fault, or a hindrance to knowledge. Without them we are left with only scientism which denies evidence outside of known natural laws a priori. Therefore God would be vastly more emotional in my view. Perfect emotions. The question of need is something else entirely. God didn't need us and yet, here we are. The question of need at this level loses all meaning. We can't be talking about the struggle for survival.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp Emotions have a use. They are functional. I would ask what function an emotion has with a deity. Ofcourse your conception of emotions is probably more than that. But if I think about a supreme being; a vastly more emotional being is the farthest thing I think of. I see a deity acting or actualizing his will with more efficiency than a mere human being acting upon his emotional nature. But its just a thought.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 Efficiency, like need, is a concept that breaks down when you get to God's level. Efficient for what? Search 'The Dalai Lama on Technological Change' here on Youtube. He shares your idea. He says he envisions a world where humans can eliminate emotion. Why do you think human emotion is less than "efficient"- and again, less than efficient for what? There are some hidden agendas that maybe even you are not aware of in what you are saying.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp If you look at the history of mysticism and other older religious practices and philosophies the one thing that is a recurring theme is the submission and relinquishing of the ego. The idea of becoming one with god somehow involves this process. Emotions will follow as well in that sense once the ego is gone. And emotional reactions/motivations would be less than efficient for actualizing your will. For taking action. Not that I advocate this.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 The concept of the ego was invented by Freud. His system is inherently dualistic, dividing man into all these fragments. Now transhumanism is about eliminating certain parts of humanity, like emotion. "Less efficient for actualizing your will." There is so much assumed in that statement.
You are making faith statements that are much more radical and unfounded than theism and I don't think you can even recognize them.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp Are you stating that an individual that is highly emotional has more clarity than an individual that is more rational...? I believe there are many examples throughout all of our lives which demonstrate the exact opposite. It seems rather well founded to me. I do not require faith to make the statement that emotional decisions can lead to outcomes we did not intend to happen. And the mystic tradition may not have used the term "ego" but they surely had the concept.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 Rationality is not opposed to emotionality. Irrationality is rationality's opposite. A man without emotions is a robot. I agree with Krishnamurti when he said, "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Psychopaths are characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deception. They seek positions of power and have great clarity in pursuing their twisted agendas.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp You're forgetting the part about abnegating your ego. Power and deception play no part in what I stated prior. All of those things are to be lost when the ego dissipates. The natural response for any human is to go against the idea ofcourse. That is only your ego's attachment to individualized experiences. The maintaining of itself. In no way shape or form does the abnegation of the ego & emotions reflect this modern "sick" society. It is quite the opposite.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 Abnegation of ego and emotions is a huge leap of faith. How do you know it can be done and how do you know you won't be in a hellish existence if you could achieve it? What evidence do you have?
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp Oh no I for one cannot tell you how to achieve it or what the experience will be like. But the idea of a hellish existence is not what I see following once I have lost all fear. To be at peace is what most of these mystic traditions profess. They see it as a way to become one with god/universe. Nothing seems to indicate that this would be a negative experience. You are to lose yourself and become like the absolute. I know; alot abstract jargon. But there is something to it.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 What makes my life meaningful now are my loved ones, the diversity of human interaction, community, and all life on this planet. The idea of losing all individuality, losing my sense of community, losing bio-diversity is hell to me. The God I worship in is not one but triune in nature. Becoming one is not something I want. It reminds me of an old Woody Allen joke about graduates of the class on oneness can then move up to two-ness. Losing fear, yes. Individuality, no.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp Again.. a mystic would say you are attached and afraid. Simply not ready. Once you lose the ego and fear none of those things you love will matter. Even in your Christian tradition there is a mystic thread which Jesus expresses in many different ways. Think about the passages when he ask that you abandon your family and loved ones to just follow him and him alone. I'm sure you know those verses word for word. Turning the other cheek; another small example.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 Jesus did not say to abandon family. If you're referring to what I think you are he was talking about how love for God should supersede all other loves. It was not an anti-family, anti/community message. Read Revelation 21. It's about the city of God coming down out of heaven- not supreme oneness where there is no individuality but a city of God. The problem is that the God you don't believe in is who you want to be one with. That won't work.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp lol... no. That wouldn't make sense to try to be one with a god I don't believe in. And the verse I was talking about was Luke 14:26. What I'm stating is that the god you believe in is being described in ways which makes him untenable. I'm trying in all honesty to stay open to the idea of god. But it must make sense. There must be a real sense of transcendence felt when conceiving of him. One of the elements to be transcended is the ego. And even your god has an ego.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 I guess we must agree to disagree. I appreciate the dialogue though. Your wording is key. I don't believe conceiving God is possible. Perceiving God is possible. This is a clear linguistic difference. Transcendence is synonymous with surpassing. What you are saying is that in order to think up or devise a god you must surpass that god. The statement is redundant and irrational.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp Yes I meant "perceive"not conceive... thank you. But I believe you got lost somewhere. I wasn't talking about surpassing a god. It's about reaching god. Experiencing him truly. The god you believe in is not that one I think exist. Or he isn't being described as purely as he can be. Without the limiting factors humans place upon him. Can you tell me that you have honestly "perceived" any of the things which relate to how your god is described. And I mean perceived directly.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@AtomicKinetic12 Yes I can and no I don't want to end the conversation. However, I can't relate it to you in the comment space provided. We'd have to exchange emails.
caveatemp 1 month ago
@caveatemp Just send me a PM. No word limits on those; i believe.
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@caveatemp My apologies. You wanted to end the conversation... lol take care
AtomicKinetic12 1 month ago
@caveatemp As if I called someone a name or insulted them, then forgiveness does not need a sacrifice of any kind from anyone involved.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@caveatemp Anyway, the Bible tells us to forgive people. We are supposed to turn the other cheek, and forgive people even if they do not ask for forgiveness. It is unbelievable to think that the Bible would tell us to do something that even God cannot.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@mk2escortvan God has forgiven. Jesus, the incarnation of God, has forgiven at a great price. The problem is when people do not believe in God in the first place. If they don't believe In God, how can God's forgiveness have any effect on them? It's analogous to a vandal who doesn't realize his breaking the windows will have any effect on the owner. The vandal doesn't even believe the owner of the car exists.
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp But I see what you are saying, about the offender not realising the offendee exists. I've been trying to be objective, and I have read (bits of) the Bible (it is huge), and talked to my Christian friends. I just cannot see enough evidence for it. I can Almost believe in a creator, but I cannot even come close to believing in any specific God. Thanks for explaining things a bit better though.
mk2escortvan 2 months ago
@caveatemp Yea, some full retards exclaim " we are born into sin" as if simply being a human baby is wrong in itself and we are sinful b/c of a supposed Adam and Eve's sins and not our own actions. Funny shit really. Sins are just guilt trips to coerce you into doing something that someone else wants you to do. Never met a rational person who believed in magical sky daddy who blames YOU for HIS creations.
1misanthropist 2 months ago
@1misanthropist When I click on your name I get a page that says, "This page is not available." Do I therefore assume you are a robot and not really deserving an honest reply?
caveatemp 2 months ago
@caveatemp with such claim, you rob god of his omnipotence.
eleminatus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As an atheist, I question what would become of people, if they did not have a religious reason to meet or get together at least once a week.
I don't see atheists meeting once a week to celebrate life or freedom from religious.
One does not celebrate non-belief. So, if religion were to disappear tomorrow, what would pull large groups of people together socially? Would we have more sporting events?
Just wondering.
gjsterp 2 months ago
This is the same argument and conclusion I came to 15 years ago when I left christianity. This video sums it up in a nutshell why christianity is a total load of bullshit and makes no sense. If the christian god does exist as the bible portrays him - hes an asshole. Wake up christians and throw off the bonds of the fairy tale.
XchristianHeathen 2 months ago
The short version: 9:01
AnswerToNumber 2 months ago
This is one of my all-time favorite Atheist Experience videos! Thank you for uploading it!
politicoochie09 2 months ago
@KingJamez1611 herp a derp
Rockster969 2 months ago
I'm having trouble with the notion that an all-powerful being can have a "character".
JMUDoc 2 months ago
her elf ears makes her super hot.
Wreckeningbassist666 2 months ago
@KingJamez1611
I'll just be wasting my breath, but oh well. I AM THE DEVIL! FEEL MY WRATH!! LOL. No wait, I mean, I AM GOD! FEEL MY WRATH!! No...yes, that's right. GOD kills everyone in the bible not the devil so I would def feel gods wrath more than the devils. He makes people burn in fire for eternity for having sex before marriage, wearing clothes made of more than one fabric, for cutting your hair or shaving, or not going to church. Hmm, I'd rather kick it with the devil.
TravisVadon 2 months ago
Matt & Tracy; both champions of truth and reason
JuanchoMan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slave holders. Keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do.
Great vid!
vash1426 2 months ago
The bible is what I use to show my son that christianity is wrong and a terrible belief that teaches hate.
Realtruth666 2 months ago 2
The lady speaks very well, you can tell she is intelligent.
omarct 2 months ago 2
Nice upload. Someone please tell me the name of the Lady with Matt? I would love to hear more of her. Pleeeeeease.
TheAfrokun 2 months ago 3
@TheAfrokun Tracie Harris, "Tracie is one of the newer faces on the Atheist Experience. She's a former fundamentalist who brings a common sense perspective to our show."
Her words flow like the poem :)
atheist-experience"dot"com
TravisVadon 2 months ago 9
@TravisVadon poetry and music to my ears. These people are putting words to the emotions that a lot of people are still struggling to define. Cheers friend.
TheAfrokun 2 months ago
@TheAfrokun I recommend the first video that pops up when you search fror Tracie Harris.
Zendrig 2 months ago
lol Why is a StarCraft video in the suggestions?
EPICsliceOFcake 2 months ago
MATT IS MY HERO!!!
BRILLIANT MIND
ottosantiago 2 months ago
Comment removed
JudeAballer 2 months ago
"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:21
JudeAballer 2 months ago
@JudeAballer
Thank man, that he was wise and unshackled himself from primitive beliefs and eradicated smallpox.........saving hundreds of millions of lives
Woe to those who are still shackled, for they will get left behind....but still rape from science in their time of need, for they know their beliefs are false Wiseman 17:4
devante11 2 months ago
hahaaaah BRILIANT! You know, I became an atheist AFTER I read the bible. Even though we, orthodox christians don't give a damn about what is written in that book, I read it because I wanted to know more about god and jesus. And guess what.....
ReStOrEdLiFe88 2 months ago
In the bible there is murder, genocide, rape, incest, torture, slavery, theft, conquest etc and these atrocities are are either committed by god, commanded by god, endorsed by god, or tolerated by god. Based on this, I suggest that god is actually the evil character in the bible and that the average human is orders of magnitude more moral than the christian god, when they're not under the influence of superstition and ignorance.
Snipe4261 2 months ago 15
7:27 has anyone else played the old game, Myst? That's what that sentence made me think of.
DepressedAnnnie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It's his character" LOL he admits it!
Casshyr 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Does anybody know the episode where Matt is talking about the sketchiness of Jesus raising the dead? Matt says something like "..Boy that's awfully strange that no one else recorded that, I mean you have a graveyard full of zombies walking into downtown Jerusalem and nobody says anything?!" If anybody knows what episode this is on please tell me! Been looking for it for MONTHS
xbox360blows 3 months ago
lisen;all of you yust give me the money and belive in me and I will bee ther when you die and I will lead you too paradise.idiots and mormons(morons)
luka7646 3 months ago
It's difficult isn't it.
fabulousgerro66 3 months ago
@auroraman56 *to the world than just the physical and natural. Something beyond the natural must exist to explain the world's origin. I believe that God is the most logical answer.
1Gokartgeek1 3 months ago
@1Gokartgeek1 or in short hand "if i do not understand why something exists or happens then it must be God" , great argument... And please do not say it is a Logical position, it was a position held by primitive ancestors , Mankind should of collectively broke free from dragging around such comfort blankets by now.. Just go outside on a clear night, look up at the stars and keep looking and realise how insignificant this little rock is in space and how Gods fizzle into nothing as a result..
amojak 3 months ago
@amojak You could possibly conclude that I am using the "God of the gaps" argument, but this argument assumes that there is no other evidence for an intelligent designer. However, evidence supporting intelligent design does exist. For example, Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's specified complexity both point to an intelligent source. Therefore, when I "look up at the stars," I make, as Dembski says, a "inference of design." I see the working of a designer in the natural world.
1Gokartgeek1 3 months ago