Cant that lady in the glasses just carry a copy of the prayer in her pocket? Or maybe even get it tattooed on her arm? No-one is taking away her beliefs. She can always go to church if she wants prayer.
I might be wrong to point this out but it sounds like this video includes the personal details of the person speaking at 2:33 is this an issue (should the video be edited to remove that information?) I don't know what the criteria for doc dropping is but this from what I have seen in the past this might count.
@CompleteRationality In this video you have a clip from another video in witch a person is giving there personal details and you are re posting those details.
Unless you are certain the person speaking is ok with you including there details here you should check again where you stand.
I'm saying this again because your response to my observation has not alleviated my concerns.
I realize that this is an ad hominem. But that's OK, because I'm not trying to make a point. When I want to make a point, I'll make it.
But anyway, I was just wondering if someone could tell me what sex that dwarfish thing wearing the baseball cap at 2:35 is. I thought I heard "Lisa French", which would seem to make it a female. If that's the case, being gay is a choice which I just now have made.
Watch Silverman's interview on the ThinkingAtheist's podcast.
He explains how leaving a case alone puts a precedent, and lets those actions continue and escalate.
I liked his explanation about the crosses. If the courts had ruled out that crosses weren't a christian sign, but secular. This could have had huge significance.
Tax money for faith-based initiatives, laws excluding non-religious people from holding certain offices, tax-exempt status of religions, the war against sex education and contraceptives, to mention just a few.
I dont say we should stop adressing the minor issues, but please, lets start tackling the big issues. Getting god removed from money is a symbolic battle, getting tax-exempt status removed from churches is the real deal.
In my community, the KofC places a creche on the community commons every year. So I started placing other religious symbols next to it. One year a menorah, one year a light-up FSM, one year a Festivus pole, and next year a wooden sign reading Allahu Ackbar in Arab text. So far, nobody has tried to remove it, and nobody has complained.
I recently watched a video about an atheist billboard that said something along the lines of "you know God isn't real". One of the interviewee's argument was "If God wasn't real it wouldn't say In God we trust on money". The underlying problem with all of these issues is that they are perceived as government endorsement of religion, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
@TheNakedAtheist Yea, I saw the video you are talking about. He said something along the lines of "If the government endorses God, then he must exist". What an idiot.
If God proved himself to be, it would take away your freedom to choose. That would destroy the epic "Free Will". Not to mention, your rights. God is allowing you to choose and have the right to choose. Atheism doesn't want to allow Religion to be taught in schools or be in politics. You're taking away OUR freedom. YOU'RE ALL Terrorists!
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush You should try reading the Constitution as your views on freedom are clearly skewed. Religion is taught in schools - private schools. The public schools that are funded by the tax dollars of people practicing many faiths or none should remain secular for the benefit of everyone.
I used to be disgusted with the government for how they mis-use their power, that was until I realized the real problem are the people. You can't drill rationality in the minds of people who are too lazy to think, yet because they're the alleged majority, rationality is expected to take a backseat.
Do any atheists ever think about why the science of phenomena is inexplicable?
A logical omniscient God would already know that such laws should not be trusted to humans that can't understand it. If one of you could do the miracles of Jesus, you'd be revered as a God. Why would God want to cancel himself out? Or be replaced? You're not thinking things through. You're a bunch of illogical, irrational, presumptuous skeptics.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Funny, you said think things through yet you spout all sorts of nonsense. Any evidence for a god would've been found by now but nothing. God makes so many fundamental errors that science has debunked it's not funny.
@SuperJBrowne Any evidence of God today would turn this world upside down. If you have a plan in life, you make a decision based on the prediction of the outcome expected. Otherwise you're a buffoon. You're illogical comparison as to how you think the way things are compared to an omniscient God's mind is laughable.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Why did you list your argument as logical it's clearly not. What about science is incapable of being explained? Isn't the role of science to explain phenomena?
God isn't logical, that's why all "proofs" for it are completely appeals to emotion. I think it's well understood that if one want to know what logical fallacies are just take a religious studies class, they get to use ever single one.
@Khemist82 But it doesn't explain all phenomena. What God stands for IS logical. What God did for US IS logical. The very fact that everything needed to survive that exists, is logical. How can you have life without necessity? We have more available than necessity. We have more abundance for the reason to exist. You'd tell an elderly person that believes in God on their death bed, that there isn't a God. What an asshole.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Yes it is in the business of explaining all phenomena. If something is unexplained, we call that unexplained phenomena. We don't just throw are hands in the air and say "We'll I guess we'll never know". No we roll up our sleeves and get to the bottom of it. Now God is not logical how ever you may feel about it. You know what logical evaluating a triangle. Why because it doesnt matter how you feel about math you use the same process to figure it out.
@Khemist82 We don't make that assumption either. You think that just because we believe God is capable of all things that that's the reason for every bit of phenomena? That's a warped perspective of believers. I look for scientific answers to a lot of questions before I say God did it. How many thousands of cases from believers are there and how many can be debunked? The search is long and difficult. Have fun.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush So Religion doesn't call Homosexuals an abomination; promote the mistreatment of women, children, animals, genitalia, or outsiders; or promote ethnic cleansing?
@Khemist82 What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason or evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
@Khemist82 Atheism. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I'm not under the tent of "Atheism need no evidence." My atheism comes from "Do the things in holy books coincide with things we find in reality? No. Ok. I'm Done"
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I don't know about prejudiced. I have't once been condescending or abusive. I haven't Rage quit either. Still here and still unimpressed. What else you got. This is fun.
@Khemist82 Prejudice is having unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. You already have a problem with religion. More so many atheists on you Tube would jump at the chance to show that without caring.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush And I fall under this definitions under what evidence? All I have noticed thus far is projection. Can you give me something of worth.
@Khemist82 Your snide remark about religion said enough. The part where you had a problem with what religion teaches over science. That is a load of crap. Many churches teach evolution and science in their teachings. Isn't it odd how 300 of Gideon's men triumphed over 135,000. God told him he had too many men at 32,000. 300 would suffice. But I guess you'd answer with, Oh they all knew Kung Fu or something. lol That's MY presupposition.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I didn't make a snide remark about religion, just you. You have had yet to say something of worth. I'm not surprised just disappointed. For someone who says they accept scientific conclusions and religion I was hoping you had something that I missed or overlooked. The Churches that allow for evolution do so to remain relevant not because they came up with it. Your story isn't science. Give me science or give me death.
@Khemist82 I wouldn't rest your underlying contention on the incredible war odds one finds in the history books of antiquity. After all, there were countless of these kinds of stories, from many different regions and different cultures. In fact, the Battle of Thermoplyea (300 Spartans) has far more incredible odds (300 vs 300,000) than the one you cited. Does it follow that the existence of Zeus and Apollo are validated by these figures? Does this prove that Poseidon was a kung-fu master? :)
@Howsonify The Spartans, as we all know, had a path way that wouldn't allow the enemy to surround them until they were betrayed. The odds were in their favor. So don't go telling people that bullshit. What a biased prejudice thing to say. You don't like religion, so you make assumptions and even worse, try to educate people on that opinion.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I'm not sure how you can say the Spartans were favored by 1/1000 odds, but I'll take your word on that. Besides, it was only an example to a broader point that these kinds of stories (Gideon) are typical of the military historical record for Eastern and Western antiquity.
And I do like religion, so that makes you assumptuous, too. (I only differ with religion on certian metaphysical doctrines and their role concerning the State-- that's it)
@Howsonify Consider the situation. In a mountain crevice. Channeled only the same amount at the phalanx as there were Spartans in the front. Man for man. The odds were definitely in the favor due to the condition of the fight.
Gideon's 300 was supposed to be just as brutal without the number slain in battle. An interesting thing about how the soldiers were picked. The ones that drank on their bellies were chosen among those who drank while crouched or on their knees. I guess the one's that drank on their bellies weren't afraid of getting dirty.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush (cont) This is not true for God. God depends of your emotion state. If it's something you like have at it, but that doesn't mean it logical until you can show me a thinking process that always ends in God and can be no other alternative. That what I expect for something logical. Get me to god without presupposing god and you'll have another man in your army.
@Khemist82 Oh so you're playing the emotional card. Ok
How many atheists deconvert based on their butt hurt opinion of religion? How many of you are there that has a presupposition of believers based on that EMOTION? Watch what you say. Sometimes it seems as if you're spitting into the wind.
@Khemist82 No, I threw your stinkin Emotional card argument back in your face like a cheap Magic the Gathering card. Don't try to sell me on an illogical, irrational, prejudice form of thinking. I bet you'd dismiss any secular science in a heartbeat. If not, name one.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush wow presumptuous much. You did no such thing. I'm amused you think so. Any way, you want me to name a secular science? Well were I come from Science is science, if it has an ideology attached its Religion. Genetics there's a science that doesn't presuppose GOD.
@Khemist82 If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Well my evidence is supported by the evidence presented for God. My position is if God exists not one religion has got the right one yet.
@Khemist82 But your decision was based on an opinion. That was my point. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute).
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush there is no such thing as law of logic. There is Laws of thought and Rules of inference which both don't need God. You know string theory is conceptual but doesn't presuppose God. Being conceptual just means a human was thinking about is really hard. Nothing more. Thing that are conceptual and true are revised all the time when new info comes along. There are no Rules, Laws, or Facts that transcend existence all break down somewhere. No God needed still.
@Khemist82 There are such things as laws of logical absolutes. Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush But you didn't say law of logical absolutes. You said law of logic. That seems to me different. If your talking about thinks like Round Squares or Striped Checkers I agree, but I have yet to see you give me an argument for God that has no conclusions other than your God. Come one I know you have one. =)
@Khemist82 That would make it an absolute law of logic. To say there are no absolutes is attempting to state an absolute. Then that would make you totally wrong. Understand this. Science has lost when it can't explain. Logic comes in as a cushion for the fall so to speak. I think logically. In this state of mind, I determine what position I hold. Why take a chance? Why belittle ourselves by making mortal comparisons to something we can't explain?
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Again you are misrepresting what I said. There are laws of logical absolutes but no laws of logic. Science is not lost when it can't explain something. People in the business of science don't know it all or it would stop. To interject god in gaps is not logical that's what irrational people do. We don't belittle ourselves by investigating what it true from what is false. We get better. Something you are not prepared to do.
@Khemist82 logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle).
3 laws of logic. So where do you get that there are no laws of logic?
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Yes God not depending on anything is itself a blind opinion and an ignorant one but you suppose to be giving me reasons why my position is illogical. We already know why your is.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I guess that how it ends. No logic, science, or anything of worth. No evidence to support your position and somehow I'm the illogical coward. This has been hilarious.
@Khemist82 At every turn I gave you logic. For one to claim that there is no God without surely knowing IS illogical. That is what You have done so far. Just spout out a bunch of old atheist arguments that went down in a blaze of glory the last time they were repeated.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush You have not stated on logical thing yet. I'm not sure you know what logic is. I asked you to demonstrate a logical argument that starts at "we exist" and ends at "That's why God is true" without extreme gaps and presupposing. You have failed to do this. If fact you have done nothing but strawman atheism. Stop projecting your failures on to me.
@Khemist82 I have so. I stated how ILLOGICAL you and the rest of the atheists are based on the presumptuous decision making. In order for me to point out your logical fallacy, I would have to propose a logical observation. This I did. You, weren't paying attention because you were so quick to contend with my comments without thinking about what I was saying.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush No you haven't. You have stated atheism is illogical without proof. You have stated atheist presume but haven't shown why you think this. You haven't pointed out a fallacy in my argument because there is not. I got you from point A to point B without flaw. I was quick to counter your arguments because there juvenile and easy to contest. What you were saying was hogwash. And at the end you differed to a philosopher who doesn't support your claims. You Failed.
@Khemist82 "You have stated atheism is illogical" That was a logical observation thus making my argument that of logic. Not to mention how I asked you logical questions like,"What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?" Totally logical. Obviously you don't know what logic is.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush That is not a logical observation. It's an opinion. You asked me what reasons I have for holding that position and I answered; We exist, We have the capacity to fulfill our own needs, we can learn enough to improve our own existence. We exist or we wouldn't be having this conversation. We have brains with more functionality than eating and pooping. We have tools like science and math. There point A to point B. No Gods needed for this criteria. Done. Now your turn.
@Khemist82 Based on a logical observation, philosophically, you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic. You have splinters in the windmill of your mind.'
The conclusion is an opinion just like every human being's decision. When you base that opinion on logic and reason, then it is worth much more than just a blind opinion. I try to get people to think logically before some ignorant atheist talks some person into deconverting blindly based on their biased presuppositions.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Again you have provided nothing. I gave you my proof where is yours William Lane Craig? You haven't demonstrated how I'm wrong you just said I am wrong. You are such a failure.
@Khemist82 You laid out some illogical, irrational, prejudice, presumptuous reasons. Not very intelligible for an atheist. I thought you people were free thinkers. How can you think freely if you allow skepticism to rule your decisions? I never said I have proof of God. That was a presupposition of yours as well. I did show proof of how you're a nut.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush No you make a claim that belief in God is logical.That not a presupposition. That's your claim. That means you have a logical train of thought to support it. You don't. Again you project yourself on to me. You are illogical, irrational, prejudiced, presumptuous nutter. You have shown nothing, proven nothing and showed you are narcissistic. Good job.
@Khemist82 It is. Okay now you're paying attention. Good for you. It is very logical to believe in God. Considering everything we know about God. Considering the Historicity of the cultures of people that experienced God physically. Considering the atheist argument that doesn't have a pot to piss in.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Why do you keep saying its logical to believe in god? What about the history of the cultures? Did every middle eastern Jew always tell the truth? Did none of them exaggerate? What part of atheism doesn't have a pot to piss in? The part where we are saying your claims are exaggerated?
@Khemist82 Go back and read the comments. That is the reason why. All of these arguments by atheists that hold blind opinions or ignorant guessing or even coaxed by a peer, are illogical. You are denying something that has already been observed and experienced by a culture in history. Not to mention a butt load of prophecies that came true. There is circumstantial evidence for God. When you grow up, you'll figure that out.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I've already read all your comments. Doesn't clear up a thing. It's like I'm talking to William Lane Craig himself. Are you going to rip of his whole act? Not going to come up with something yourself? When are you going to claim epistemology? This is just too funny.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush "Considering everything we know about God. Considering the Historicity of the cultures of people that experienced God physically."
The amusing thing here is that here you could be talking about Hinduism, the followers of Sai Baba, ancient Egyptian mythology and a range of other myths. What you call "circumstantial evidence for God" is in fact concrete evidence that humans make up gods and end up believing in them with an irrational passion.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush What you're doing is literally the same as picking up a copy of Spiderman, figuring out that it talks a lot about New York, and then taking the fact that New York exists to be circumstantial evidence of Spiderman's superpowers. To say that this is stupid is only scratching the surface. Claims of miracles simply can never be substantiated via hearsay, because the alternative hypotheses "fraud" and "people being mistaken" will always be more probable.
@Gnomefro This is what I've been talking about. The stupid bullshit you atheists spout out like this. You think by opinion that that is what I'm doing, but you're so wrong, Also you're comment comparing what we believe to a comic book IS a straw man. You just don't WANT there to be a God. In closing, Every atheist is a fraud. It is just a bitch by people over the restrictions of religion. That is how atheism started anyway. The protestant of protestants.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Do yourself a favor and don't try to imagine what we think. It makes you look even more foolish. You're the one who believes in talking snakes, dogs, pigs, and all sorts of other animals. You're the one who believes in a history that has no evidence of ever happening.
@Bookwyrm86 Do yourself a favor and get therapy. You atheists are full of shit. You're main complaint is that over the restrictions of religion. It's not about the evidence. You know that is a load of bull shit used just to escape an argument. BTW YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK WE THINK! With all the straw man crap about magic sky daddy, calling the Bible a comic book, and just being a douche bag to piss us off. Fuck off and die.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush The Bible is a collection of airy tales, letters, and legends from a past that never happened. No Exodus, no slavery en Egypt, no homicidal sky daddy.
"Fuck off and die"? What a very Christian attitude. Evidence that your devotion to your own faith is purely cosmetic. Do you have anything but bluster and cursing?
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Try reading other books...like "The Bible Unearthed": A book that looks into the historical claims of the Bible and compares them to real archaeological finds. Guess what: No evidence of any Exodus, and no trace of any history of a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. The lackof evidence where there should be evidence speaks volumes.
Now it is your turn: Prove any of it actually happened. Without using the Bible. Real world evidence. Got any? Didn't think so.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Your language makes baby Jesus cry. If this is the effect of a belief in god, I want no part of it. "Fuck off and die?" Really?
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Because of this, it is wildly irrational to believe in gods via reference to history. It could possibly be "logical" to believe in gods on that basis, but only after you have accepted certain naturally impossible premises(miracles) as true via irrational means, and if you do this on a regular basis, you can be made to believe anything at all.
You know what this is all about? This is about the atheists wanting another atheist in office so they can blindly remove religion. It's because you don't like what religion says. So prejudice.
Did you ever think that there is a reason WHY God disproves such deeds by humans? Or are you too caught up in your porn addictions, drugs, sex addictions and lies to accept the truth. Something is blocking you from believing. Those are the things that which every one of you have to contend with.
2:53 This arrogant mouth-breather only strongly emphasized an appeal to popularity and was implying that the history of anyone who disagrees with the particular religious standing the banner imposed only amounts to decades. Even if I were so ignorant, that should only impress someone more.
Then there was clapping! That's their political environment? Jessica is too good for such a massively stupid place.
Lardy bardy there with argument ad-populum, what a surprise. So according to her, if enough people think rape and murder is fine, we should legalize it just like that XD
@WildwoodClaire1 Judge John Jones addressed this issue very well in his talk at a university about creationism in public schools. It's a great watch. He explains how the court's job is not to respond to the majority, but to uphold the constitution.
Wow... That fat, stereotypical hating christian woman is the exact reason, why a seperation of church and state is needed. You can invoke by the same rationality, that the majority wants jews to be expelled and killed, so the majority rules...
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush- You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your evidence? Your book is only proof that a book was written. Your other claims have been refuted by evidence many times over. Aaron1975melbourne is right. It is a fool's errand to try to disprove a negative.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush- Cold fusion??? Do you have any examples of successful, reproducible claims? Remember the two criteria 1) successful and ,most importantly, 2) reproducible by independent studies.
No, religion has too much undeserved privilege and every ounce of it must be taken away. Idiots like Canvas is a prime example as to why it must be done. Stupidity and ignorance in the name of religion is too rampant in this society.
And atheism is trying to take away religion. This video says enough. Atheists actually think that science proves anything. Science does not explain: 1. DARK MATTER 2. THE LAW OF GRAVITY 3. COLD FUSION 4. CHARGE CLUSTERS 5. COSMOLOGY 6. SPEED OF LIGHT 7. ESP 8. PSYCHOKINESIS, OR MIND OVER MATTER 9. REMOTE VIEWING 10. TIME AND PROPHECY You're livin a dream BOY!
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush OK? Are you saying that saying "God did it" does? You should really look up "God of the gaps," and then, look up an appeal to ignorance.
@CompleteRationality Oh you'd like that wouldn't you? If science can't explain the origin of the universe and everything that is created is made from a cause or is caused to do so, then why can't it be God? Why rule out something that has been recorded in history to make a difference physically in the lives of the culture that believed? You categorize Jesus as a hoax or a madman. You should be ashamed of yourself for assuming such nonsense. (CONT...)
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush A hundred years ago god did the spanish flu. Now we now it was a virus. Just wait another 100 years and see how many of the "God did it" claims crumble like a chocolate chip cookie. Now go back to your cave and worship a burning torch provided by the God of fire.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Science not being able to explain something has nothing to do with there being a "God". Did you not look up an appeal to ignorance?
Apparently, you think it was good idea for the Greeks to label lightning as the work of Zeus. Needless to say, they were wrong, and science happens to explain lighting a lot better than the the claim that "A God did it," which doesn't explain anything at all.
@CompleteRationality It has everything to do with your argument against God. You claim there is no evidence for God. More so, you claim that there is no God. Tell that to a homeless starving family that received a better life through people that believe in God. That is just an asshole mentality. You'd have to be a real dick to say that to someone. Are atheists that heartless? It seems so.
@CompleteRationality "If science can't explain the origin of the universe and everything that is created is made from a cause or is caused to do so, then why can't it be God?:
1. Define God
2. Explain how God has done what he has done.
3. Provide evidence for God.
4. Provide evidence that the laws of physics can be suspended.
@CompleteRationality 1: Superior consciousness of existence. 2: I am human. How can a human explain something a God does? 3: The history of the people that experienced God. (If you don't except, then all history is worthless) 4: prove that they can't. 5: All things that begin to exist need a cause. 6: You're a pink unicorn.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush 1 "Superior consciousness of existence" is not a falsifiable claim as it's not distinct. It's a very emotive phrase that provides nothing of meaning. What do you mean by superior? What do you mean by conscious? By existence?
2 Explanations are not questions. A question is evidence of nothing
3 "experienced God" is incorrect: you're trying to include the conclusion in the question
@globalarte Already answered them. One was, How does a human explain what a God does? We can't. So why are you asking for evidence of something that can't be explained through science? Do you see how stupid atheism really is? A giant cult of skepticism. Who's your leader? Dawkins the prejudice bigot?
If you can't explain how a deity acts, then how can you therefore conclude that it's the deity that does the action? Ultimately, you would still need to demonstrate that the deity exists in the first place. You could show that by showing what it does and how, but you can't do that either. So you can't show existence, you can't show action, you can't show anything, can you?
@CompleteRationality How would you feel if on the stand in a courtroom, facing judgment for a crime you didn't commit and the only witness to your innocence is dead or missing?
Do you think that the only physicals laws we perceive are the only laws of science? What the human mind can't perceive, atheists try to make up an excuse using something they can't explain it with anyway. You bunch of hypocrites!
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush In response to your proposed analogy, are you suggesting that we should by default, accept all claims in court along the lines of "There were witnesses to my innocence, but they are no longer alive"? Also, do you think we would be acquitting guilty people of charges more than we would the innocent if we operated in this manner?
As far as scientific laws go, I don't know what your point is. Give me an example of an excuse that "atheists" use please.
@CompleteRationality Atheists use scientific theories to support their arguments against God. Theories. (LAME)
For example: Naturalism.
Naturalism does not explain all phenomena. We can't assume that it ever will.
Dark Matter: The so-called "Theory of Everything" does not predict and does not understand what this substance is. What about unknown laws of physics? You only have what humans perceive to go by.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Naturalism does not purport to explain anything, so you're not making a point. Again, the lack of an explanation for something does not vindicate a baseless assertion.
@CompleteRationality If you claim by use of the laws of physics in science that God does not exist because of the lack of evidence for the unexplained, then you are using Naturalism as an argument altogether.
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush OK listen, this video has nothing to do with the existence of a God. I would be glad to have a conversation with you via PM's where the replies are not limited by character limit and are not unrelated to the video.
Best pun title I've seen. Congrats.
imshippyupup 2 weeks ago
Cant that lady in the glasses just carry a copy of the prayer in her pocket? Or maybe even get it tattooed on her arm? No-one is taking away her beliefs. She can always go to church if she wants prayer.
rossini55 2 weeks ago
A wild snorlax has appeared
RyanDemaree 3 weeks ago
I get it now! In the US, it's a separation of *non-Christian* church and State, not simply "church and State"!
Discern4 3 weeks ago
You delete your videos WAY to often. What happened to your rant video from yesterday? There were also like 20 other videos from a few months ago.
MasterTheMike 3 weeks ago
@MasterTheMike I got rid of all of my older videos ever since my channel has started in a new direction.
CompleteRationality 3 weeks ago
DECK-AIDS
AtheisticTeenager 3 weeks ago
Am I wrong in assuming that the girl in the hat is mentally unstable?
IntrovertedLuddite2 3 weeks ago 4
CR, you have to take Condell's statements into proportion: he is European, things are a bit different here.
SeltsamerAttraktor 3 weeks ago
@SeltsamerAttraktor Well, he took it upon himself as a European to speak on American issues.
CompleteRationality 3 weeks ago
NO TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR ANY RELIHIOUS GROUPS !
flexbrat 3 weeks ago
I might be wrong to point this out but it sounds like this video includes the personal details of the person speaking at 2:33 is this an issue (should the video be edited to remove that information?) I don't know what the criteria for doc dropping is but this from what I have seen in the past this might count.
rarrmonkey 3 weeks ago
@rarrmonkey That is nowhere near doc dropping. This was a public high school meeting about the prayer banner.
/watch?v=BgKMgDZns1Q&feature=related
CompleteRationality 3 weeks ago 3
@CompleteRationality In this video you have a clip from another video in witch a person is giving there personal details and you are re posting those details.
Unless you are certain the person speaking is ok with you including there details here you should check again where you stand.
I'm saying this again because your response to my observation has not alleviated my concerns.
rarrmonkey 3 weeks ago
I realize that this is an ad hominem. But that's OK, because I'm not trying to make a point. When I want to make a point, I'll make it.
But anyway, I was just wondering if someone could tell me what sex that dwarfish thing wearing the baseball cap at 2:35 is. I thought I heard "Lisa French", which would seem to make it a female. If that's the case, being gay is a choice which I just now have made.
Rationalific 3 weeks ago
Looks like both commissioner joe hall, and mayor anthony court need to be removed from office if they are refusing a court order.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 weeks ago
Also have to be careful with this nonsensical bs thng of grandfather clause, where you didnt' bitch about it for 50 years, so you can't now.
wolfwing1 3 weeks ago
Watch Silverman's interview on the ThinkingAtheist's podcast.
He explains how leaving a case alone puts a precedent, and lets those actions continue and escalate.
I liked his explanation about the crosses. If the courts had ruled out that crosses weren't a christian sign, but secular. This could have had huge significance.
Xgya2000 3 weeks ago
@Xgya2000 Exactly, if we let the little things get by, sometime in the future they will use them to affirm that this country is a "christian" nation.
CompleteRationality 3 weeks ago
2:33-4:07 was that a dude?
chadwick0091 4 weeks ago in playlist Religion and America
yeah they are nut jobs and don't care about anything but them selfs
Papercut2099 4 weeks ago
i think there are bigger issues.
Tax money for faith-based initiatives, laws excluding non-religious people from holding certain offices, tax-exempt status of religions, the war against sex education and contraceptives, to mention just a few.
I dont say we should stop adressing the minor issues, but please, lets start tackling the big issues. Getting god removed from money is a symbolic battle, getting tax-exempt status removed from churches is the real deal.
kurtilein3 4 weeks ago
@kurtilein3 No argument with you there, you make a good point. I see them all as equally important though.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
Seriously, why do these people react with death threats? I don't see how they can rationalize that type of response.
HorrorIllogium 4 weeks ago
And by the way, excellent video.
TruthofthePeople 4 weeks ago
2:34 The stupidity is strong with this one.
TruthofthePeople 4 weeks ago
In my community, the KofC places a creche on the community commons every year. So I started placing other religious symbols next to it. One year a menorah, one year a light-up FSM, one year a Festivus pole, and next year a wooden sign reading Allahu Ackbar in Arab text. So far, nobody has tried to remove it, and nobody has complained.
gamutman 4 weeks ago
I recently watched a video about an atheist billboard that said something along the lines of "you know God isn't real". One of the interviewee's argument was "If God wasn't real it wouldn't say In God we trust on money". The underlying problem with all of these issues is that they are perceived as government endorsement of religion, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
TheNakedAtheist 4 weeks ago 2
@TheNakedAtheist Yea, I saw the video you are talking about. He said something along the lines of "If the government endorses God, then he must exist". What an idiot.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago 2
@CompleteRationality Has anyone challenged "In God we trust" on money as being unconstitutional?
Hyperplaterine 3 weeks ago
If God proved himself to be, it would take away your freedom to choose. That would destroy the epic "Free Will". Not to mention, your rights. God is allowing you to choose and have the right to choose. Atheism doesn't want to allow Religion to be taught in schools or be in politics. You're taking away OUR freedom. YOU'RE ALL Terrorists!
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush You should try reading the Constitution as your views on freedom are clearly skewed. Religion is taught in schools - private schools. The public schools that are funded by the tax dollars of people practicing many faiths or none should remain secular for the benefit of everyone.
MyGrammarRules 3 weeks ago
I used to be disgusted with the government for how they mis-use their power, that was until I realized the real problem are the people. You can't drill rationality in the minds of people who are too lazy to think, yet because they're the alleged majority, rationality is expected to take a backseat.
ZeerosFate 4 weeks ago
Sometimes the only cure for a loudmouth, is to shove a dirty sock in her pie hole
AtheistToothFairy 4 weeks ago
Wow that's scary, slipping back into the dark ages smh
MrAdwolfe1 4 weeks ago
Logical closure:
Do any atheists ever think about why the science of phenomena is inexplicable?
A logical omniscient God would already know that such laws should not be trusted to humans that can't understand it. If one of you could do the miracles of Jesus, you'd be revered as a God. Why would God want to cancel himself out? Or be replaced? You're not thinking things through. You're a bunch of illogical, irrational, presumptuous skeptics.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Funny, you said think things through yet you spout all sorts of nonsense. Any evidence for a god would've been found by now but nothing. God makes so many fundamental errors that science has debunked it's not funny.
SuperJBrowne 4 weeks ago
@SuperJBrowne Any evidence of God today would turn this world upside down. If you have a plan in life, you make a decision based on the prediction of the outcome expected. Otherwise you're a buffoon. You're illogical comparison as to how you think the way things are compared to an omniscient God's mind is laughable.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Why did you list your argument as logical it's clearly not. What about science is incapable of being explained? Isn't the role of science to explain phenomena?
God isn't logical, that's why all "proofs" for it are completely appeals to emotion. I think it's well understood that if one want to know what logical fallacies are just take a religious studies class, they get to use ever single one.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 But it doesn't explain all phenomena. What God stands for IS logical. What God did for US IS logical. The very fact that everything needed to survive that exists, is logical. How can you have life without necessity? We have more available than necessity. We have more abundance for the reason to exist. You'd tell an elderly person that believes in God on their death bed, that there isn't a God. What an asshole.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Yes it is in the business of explaining all phenomena. If something is unexplained, we call that unexplained phenomena. We don't just throw are hands in the air and say "We'll I guess we'll never know". No we roll up our sleeves and get to the bottom of it. Now God is not logical how ever you may feel about it. You know what logical evaluating a triangle. Why because it doesnt matter how you feel about math you use the same process to figure it out.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 We don't make that assumption either. You think that just because we believe God is capable of all things that that's the reason for every bit of phenomena? That's a warped perspective of believers. I look for scientific answers to a lot of questions before I say God did it. How many thousands of cases from believers are there and how many can be debunked? The search is long and difficult. Have fun.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush "we believe God is capable of all things." You understand this is an assumption right?
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Of course I do. Better that assumption then, "WAAH RELIGION CALLS HOMOS AN ABOMINATION. I DON'T LIKE THEM ANYMORE. BOO HOO."
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush So Religion doesn't call Homosexuals an abomination; promote the mistreatment of women, children, animals, genitalia, or outsiders; or promote ethnic cleansing?
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason or evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush "What reasons do you have for holding that position?" What position?
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Atheism. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I'm not under the tent of "Atheism need no evidence." My atheism comes from "Do the things in holy books coincide with things we find in reality? No. Ok. I'm Done"
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 You just admitted to being prejudice. Good for you. Rage quitting doesn't look good in front of other atheists. It shows you failed.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I don't know about prejudiced. I have't once been condescending or abusive. I haven't Rage quit either. Still here and still unimpressed. What else you got. This is fun.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Prejudice is having unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. You already have a problem with religion. More so many atheists on you Tube would jump at the chance to show that without caring.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush And I fall under this definitions under what evidence? All I have noticed thus far is projection. Can you give me something of worth.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Your snide remark about religion said enough. The part where you had a problem with what religion teaches over science. That is a load of crap. Many churches teach evolution and science in their teachings. Isn't it odd how 300 of Gideon's men triumphed over 135,000. God told him he had too many men at 32,000. 300 would suffice. But I guess you'd answer with, Oh they all knew Kung Fu or something. lol That's MY presupposition.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I didn't make a snide remark about religion, just you. You have had yet to say something of worth. I'm not surprised just disappointed. For someone who says they accept scientific conclusions and religion I was hoping you had something that I missed or overlooked. The Churches that allow for evolution do so to remain relevant not because they came up with it. Your story isn't science. Give me science or give me death.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 I wouldn't rest your underlying contention on the incredible war odds one finds in the history books of antiquity. After all, there were countless of these kinds of stories, from many different regions and different cultures. In fact, the Battle of Thermoplyea (300 Spartans) has far more incredible odds (300 vs 300,000) than the one you cited. Does it follow that the existence of Zeus and Apollo are validated by these figures? Does this prove that Poseidon was a kung-fu master? :)
Howsonify 4 weeks ago
@Howsonify I think you misreplied. =)
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Howsonify The Spartans, as we all know, had a path way that wouldn't allow the enemy to surround them until they were betrayed. The odds were in their favor. So don't go telling people that bullshit. What a biased prejudice thing to say. You don't like religion, so you make assumptions and even worse, try to educate people on that opinion.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I'm not sure how you can say the Spartans were favored by 1/1000 odds, but I'll take your word on that. Besides, it was only an example to a broader point that these kinds of stories (Gideon) are typical of the military historical record for Eastern and Western antiquity.
And I do like religion, so that makes you assumptuous, too. (I only differ with religion on certian metaphysical doctrines and their role concerning the State-- that's it)
Howsonify 4 weeks ago
@Howsonify Consider the situation. In a mountain crevice. Channeled only the same amount at the phalanx as there were Spartans in the front. Man for man. The odds were definitely in the favor due to the condition of the fight.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I bet that was a fierce fight, and a stinky crevice!
Howsonify 4 weeks ago
@Howsonify Yea I agree it must have been. lol
Gideon's 300 was supposed to be just as brutal without the number slain in battle. An interesting thing about how the soldiers were picked. The ones that drank on their bellies were chosen among those who drank while crouched or on their knees. I guess the one's that drank on their bellies weren't afraid of getting dirty.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush (cont) This is not true for God. God depends of your emotion state. If it's something you like have at it, but that doesn't mean it logical until you can show me a thinking process that always ends in God and can be no other alternative. That what I expect for something logical. Get me to god without presupposing god and you'll have another man in your army.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Oh so you're playing the emotional card. Ok
How many atheists deconvert based on their butt hurt opinion of religion? How many of you are there that has a presupposition of believers based on that EMOTION? Watch what you say. Sometimes it seems as if you're spitting into the wind.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Ironic you've just done what your accusing others of doing again. Interesting.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 No, I threw your stinkin Emotional card argument back in your face like a cheap Magic the Gathering card. Don't try to sell me on an illogical, irrational, prejudice form of thinking. I bet you'd dismiss any secular science in a heartbeat. If not, name one.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush wow presumptuous much. You did no such thing. I'm amused you think so. Any way, you want me to name a secular science? Well were I come from Science is science, if it has an ideology attached its Religion. Genetics there's a science that doesn't presuppose GOD.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Well my evidence is supported by the evidence presented for God. My position is if God exists not one religion has got the right one yet.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 But your decision was based on an opinion. That was my point. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute).
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush there is no such thing as law of logic. There is Laws of thought and Rules of inference which both don't need God. You know string theory is conceptual but doesn't presuppose God. Being conceptual just means a human was thinking about is really hard. Nothing more. Thing that are conceptual and true are revised all the time when new info comes along. There are no Rules, Laws, or Facts that transcend existence all break down somewhere. No God needed still.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 There are such things as laws of logical absolutes. Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush But you didn't say law of logical absolutes. You said law of logic. That seems to me different. If your talking about thinks like Round Squares or Striped Checkers I agree, but I have yet to see you give me an argument for God that has no conclusions other than your God. Come one I know you have one. =)
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 A law of logical absolute IS a law. Did you miss something?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I guess I missed where Law of logical absolute = Law of Logic.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 That would make it an absolute law of logic. To say there are no absolutes is attempting to state an absolute. Then that would make you totally wrong. Understand this. Science has lost when it can't explain. Logic comes in as a cushion for the fall so to speak. I think logically. In this state of mind, I determine what position I hold. Why take a chance? Why belittle ourselves by making mortal comparisons to something we can't explain?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Again you are misrepresting what I said. There are laws of logical absolutes but no laws of logic. Science is not lost when it can't explain something. People in the business of science don't know it all or it would stop. To interject god in gaps is not logical that's what irrational people do. We don't belittle ourselves by investigating what it true from what is false. We get better. Something you are not prepared to do.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle).
3 laws of logic. So where do you get that there are no laws of logic?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush The tag argument really?
ThoseGamerguyz 4 weeks ago
@ThoseGamerguyz Waiting for some of that atheism rationality they claim to have.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 God doesn't depend on anything. That was a blind opinion and an ignorant one at that.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Yes God not depending on anything is itself a blind opinion and an ignorant one but you suppose to be giving me reasons why my position is illogical. We already know why your is.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush You should check out Kenneth Jon Barwise. A very wise and talented philosopher.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush So sent you this message below, but in all my excitement, I sent it to the wrong person (green-horn mistake!).
Howsonify 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I guess that how it ends. No logic, science, or anything of worth. No evidence to support your position and somehow I'm the illogical coward. This has been hilarious.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 At every turn I gave you logic. For one to claim that there is no God without surely knowing IS illogical. That is what You have done so far. Just spout out a bunch of old atheist arguments that went down in a blaze of glory the last time they were repeated.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush You have not stated on logical thing yet. I'm not sure you know what logic is. I asked you to demonstrate a logical argument that starts at "we exist" and ends at "That's why God is true" without extreme gaps and presupposing. You have failed to do this. If fact you have done nothing but strawman atheism. Stop projecting your failures on to me.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 I have so. I stated how ILLOGICAL you and the rest of the atheists are based on the presumptuous decision making. In order for me to point out your logical fallacy, I would have to propose a logical observation. This I did. You, weren't paying attention because you were so quick to contend with my comments without thinking about what I was saying.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush No you haven't. You have stated atheism is illogical without proof. You have stated atheist presume but haven't shown why you think this. You haven't pointed out a fallacy in my argument because there is not. I got you from point A to point B without flaw. I was quick to counter your arguments because there juvenile and easy to contest. What you were saying was hogwash. And at the end you differed to a philosopher who doesn't support your claims. You Failed.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 "You have stated atheism is illogical" That was a logical observation thus making my argument that of logic. Not to mention how I asked you logical questions like,"What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?" Totally logical. Obviously you don't know what logic is.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush That is not a logical observation. It's an opinion. You asked me what reasons I have for holding that position and I answered; We exist, We have the capacity to fulfill our own needs, we can learn enough to improve our own existence. We exist or we wouldn't be having this conversation. We have brains with more functionality than eating and pooping. We have tools like science and math. There point A to point B. No Gods needed for this criteria. Done. Now your turn.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Based on a logical observation, philosophically, you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic. You have splinters in the windmill of your mind.'
The conclusion is an opinion just like every human being's decision. When you base that opinion on logic and reason, then it is worth much more than just a blind opinion. I try to get people to think logically before some ignorant atheist talks some person into deconverting blindly based on their biased presuppositions.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Again you have provided nothing. I gave you my proof where is yours William Lane Craig? You haven't demonstrated how I'm wrong you just said I am wrong. You are such a failure.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 WHAT PROOF? You just shot off at the mouth the same stupid arguments I have been hearing for two years! You're a nut without a shell.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush No what's your Proof? I laid out why I don't think god exist. you show me what I missed that got you to God.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 You laid out some illogical, irrational, prejudice, presumptuous reasons. Not very intelligible for an atheist. I thought you people were free thinkers. How can you think freely if you allow skepticism to rule your decisions? I never said I have proof of God. That was a presupposition of yours as well. I did show proof of how you're a nut.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush No you make a claim that belief in God is logical.That not a presupposition. That's your claim. That means you have a logical train of thought to support it. You don't. Again you project yourself on to me. You are illogical, irrational, prejudiced, presumptuous nutter. You have shown nothing, proven nothing and showed you are narcissistic. Good job.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 It is. Okay now you're paying attention. Good for you. It is very logical to believe in God. Considering everything we know about God. Considering the Historicity of the cultures of people that experienced God physically. Considering the atheist argument that doesn't have a pot to piss in.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Why do you keep saying its logical to believe in god? What about the history of the cultures? Did every middle eastern Jew always tell the truth? Did none of them exaggerate? What part of atheism doesn't have a pot to piss in? The part where we are saying your claims are exaggerated?
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 Go back and read the comments. That is the reason why. All of these arguments by atheists that hold blind opinions or ignorant guessing or even coaxed by a peer, are illogical. You are denying something that has already been observed and experienced by a culture in history. Not to mention a butt load of prophecies that came true. There is circumstantial evidence for God. When you grow up, you'll figure that out.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I've already read all your comments. Doesn't clear up a thing. It's like I'm talking to William Lane Craig himself. Are you going to rip of his whole act? Not going to come up with something yourself? When are you going to claim epistemology? This is just too funny.
Khemist82 4 weeks ago
@Khemist82 WLC FTW!!!
Honestly I can say, those aren't WLC arguments. Not his own. It may sound as if he uses them, but they're not his.
You're in God denial. But guess what? Jesus still loves you no matter how brain damaged you are. :P
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush
You're in Thor denial. But guess what? Thor still loves you no matter how brain damaged you are :P
TurboDally 3 weeks ago
@TurboDally No. Thor was a superstition. The Thunder God. lol
ᚦᛟᚾᚨᚱ
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush "Considering everything we know about God. Considering the Historicity of the cultures of people that experienced God physically."
The amusing thing here is that here you could be talking about Hinduism, the followers of Sai Baba, ancient Egyptian mythology and a range of other myths. What you call "circumstantial evidence for God" is in fact concrete evidence that humans make up gods and end up believing in them with an irrational passion.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush What you're doing is literally the same as picking up a copy of Spiderman, figuring out that it talks a lot about New York, and then taking the fact that New York exists to be circumstantial evidence of Spiderman's superpowers. To say that this is stupid is only scratching the surface. Claims of miracles simply can never be substantiated via hearsay, because the alternative hypotheses "fraud" and "people being mistaken" will always be more probable.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago 2
@Gnomefro This is what I've been talking about. The stupid bullshit you atheists spout out like this. You think by opinion that that is what I'm doing, but you're so wrong, Also you're comment comparing what we believe to a comic book IS a straw man. You just don't WANT there to be a God. In closing, Every atheist is a fraud. It is just a bitch by people over the restrictions of religion. That is how atheism started anyway. The protestant of protestants.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Do yourself a favor and don't try to imagine what we think. It makes you look even more foolish. You're the one who believes in talking snakes, dogs, pigs, and all sorts of other animals. You're the one who believes in a history that has no evidence of ever happening.
Bookwyrm86 3 weeks ago
@Bookwyrm86 Do yourself a favor and get therapy. You atheists are full of shit. You're main complaint is that over the restrictions of religion. It's not about the evidence. You know that is a load of bull shit used just to escape an argument. BTW YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK WE THINK! With all the straw man crap about magic sky daddy, calling the Bible a comic book, and just being a douche bag to piss us off. Fuck off and die.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush The Bible is a collection of airy tales, letters, and legends from a past that never happened. No Exodus, no slavery en Egypt, no homicidal sky daddy.
"Fuck off and die"? What a very Christian attitude. Evidence that your devotion to your own faith is purely cosmetic. Do you have anything but bluster and cursing?
Bookwyrm86 3 weeks ago
@Bookwyrm86 Prove it.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Try reading other books...like "The Bible Unearthed": A book that looks into the historical claims of the Bible and compares them to real archaeological finds. Guess what: No evidence of any Exodus, and no trace of any history of a Hebrew presence in Egypt at all. The lackof evidence where there should be evidence speaks volumes.
Now it is your turn: Prove any of it actually happened. Without using the Bible. Real world evidence. Got any? Didn't think so.
Bookwyrm86 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Your language makes baby Jesus cry. If this is the effect of a belief in god, I want no part of it. "Fuck off and die?" Really?
MyGrammarRules 3 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Because of this, it is wildly irrational to believe in gods via reference to history. It could possibly be "logical" to believe in gods on that basis, but only after you have accepted certain naturally impossible premises(miracles) as true via irrational means, and if you do this on a regular basis, you can be made to believe anything at all.
Gnomefro 3 weeks ago 2
Who is the short guy at 2:34?
Killer0fTheSun 4 weeks ago
You know what this is all about? This is about the atheists wanting another atheist in office so they can blindly remove religion. It's because you don't like what religion says. So prejudice.
Did you ever think that there is a reason WHY God disproves such deeds by humans? Or are you too caught up in your porn addictions, drugs, sex addictions and lies to accept the truth. Something is blocking you from believing. Those are the things that which every one of you have to contend with.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
2:53 This arrogant mouth-breather only strongly emphasized an appeal to popularity and was implying that the history of anyone who disagrees with the particular religious standing the banner imposed only amounts to decades. Even if I were so ignorant, that should only impress someone more.
Then there was clapping! That's their political environment? Jessica is too good for such a massively stupid place.
BeBoBli 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
BeBoBli 4 weeks ago
Lardy bardy there with argument ad-populum, what a surprise. So according to her, if enough people think rape and murder is fine, we should legalize it just like that XD
hildegain 4 weeks ago
2:33 A wild Snorlax appears at the hearing!
Akira625 4 weeks ago
The loudmouthed lard-ass in your video needs to research the term "tyranny of the majority."
WildwoodClaire1 4 weeks ago 8
@WildwoodClaire1 Judge John Jones addressed this issue very well in his talk at a university about creationism in public schools. It's a great watch. He explains how the court's job is not to respond to the majority, but to uphold the constitution.
/watch?v=Gm2nY67e6LQ
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
kick ass video hun!
why cant they rally for education, class warfare and poverty! fucking people need to get their priorities right!
MsRobotRock 4 weeks ago
@MsRobotRock I second that motion!
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
Isnt there plenty of religious based "PRIVATE"schools that have all that voodoo on their walls?
But I know those cost money.....hey religion always does
that deluded woman with the stupid patriotic ball cap just oh man
thats one ugly ass bully right there
who the fuck would want to spend eternity to that? i better start sinning more.
wideosvatcher 4 weeks ago
I love the stupid bitch's "might makes right" argument.
The Constitution trumps math, stupid bitch.
SiriusMined 4 weeks ago
Wow... That fat, stereotypical hating christian woman is the exact reason, why a seperation of church and state is needed. You can invoke by the same rationality, that the majority wants jews to be expelled and killed, so the majority rules...
MardasMan 4 weeks ago 2
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush- You're the one making the extraordinary claim. Where is your evidence? Your book is only proof that a book was written. Your other claims have been refuted by evidence many times over. Aaron1975melbourne is right. It is a fool's errand to try to disprove a negative.
Puddles7224 4 weeks ago
2:34 What is that? Kill it with fire before it lays eggs!
geyza0711 4 weeks ago 6
@geyza0711 Lol!
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago 3
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush stop victimizing yourself kid. this is about taking away religious propaganda from a public building.
public building =/= religious building. you can still can sing to Jaysus at the apropriate places (church, your home, etc).
As for science, it as brought you plenty of things like your computer and your internet. yap it wasn't jaysus, it was science.
ZZzzzzzWhat 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush- Cold fusion??? Do you have any examples of successful, reproducible claims? Remember the two criteria 1) successful and ,most importantly, 2) reproducible by independent studies.
Puddles7224 4 weeks ago
This stupid fat windbag should have taken a course on the constitution...not math.
trythinkingnow 4 weeks ago
@trythinkingnow Agreed. Maybe in her school, they took math in government, and government in math?
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
@trythinkingnow Yeah. That was hard to watch. Loud, obnoxious and irrational. Not a good combo, but a common one unfortunately.
sixcats100 4 weeks ago
I think the girl in the hat making the "majority" speech is a lesbo- fine with me, shameful to gawd
juggaloryan3 4 weeks ago
Christian persecution complex at its finest.
finderfinder100 4 weeks ago
I guess that fat cunt wouldn't have said anything against the Nazis, because afterall, the majority decides.
HybridD91 4 weeks ago
No, religion has too much undeserved privilege and every ounce of it must be taken away. Idiots like Canvas is a prime example as to why it must be done. Stupidity and ignorance in the name of religion is too rampant in this society.
HybridD91 4 weeks ago
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush OK? Are you saying that saying "God did it" does? You should really look up "God of the gaps," and then, look up an appeal to ignorance.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago 9
@CompleteRationality Oh you'd like that wouldn't you? If science can't explain the origin of the universe and everything that is created is made from a cause or is caused to do so, then why can't it be God? Why rule out something that has been recorded in history to make a difference physically in the lives of the culture that believed? You categorize Jesus as a hoax or a madman. You should be ashamed of yourself for assuming such nonsense. (CONT...)
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush A hundred years ago god did the spanish flu. Now we now it was a virus. Just wait another 100 years and see how many of the "God did it" claims crumble like a chocolate chip cookie. Now go back to your cave and worship a burning torch provided by the God of fire.
geyza0711 4 weeks ago
@geyza0711 "Achoo."- Answered.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Science not being able to explain something has nothing to do with there being a "God". Did you not look up an appeal to ignorance?
Apparently, you think it was good idea for the Greeks to label lightning as the work of Zeus. Needless to say, they were wrong, and science happens to explain lighting a lot better than the the claim that "A God did it," which doesn't explain anything at all.
(cont)
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
@CompleteRationality It has everything to do with your argument against God. You claim there is no evidence for God. More so, you claim that there is no God. Tell that to a homeless starving family that received a better life through people that believe in God. That is just an asshole mentality. You'd have to be a real dick to say that to someone. Are atheists that heartless? It seems so.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CompleteRationality "If science can't explain the origin of the universe and everything that is created is made from a cause or is caused to do so, then why can't it be God?:
1. Define God
2. Explain how God has done what he has done.
3. Provide evidence for God.
4. Provide evidence that the laws of physics can be suspended.
5. Explain why the universe needed a creator.
6. Make a falsifiable claim.
Those are some of the criteria you need to meet.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
@CompleteRationality 1: Superior consciousness of existence. 2: I am human. How can a human explain something a God does? 3: The history of the people that experienced God. (If you don't except, then all history is worthless) 4: prove that they can't. 5: All things that begin to exist need a cause. 6: You're a pink unicorn.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush 1 "Superior consciousness of existence" is not a falsifiable claim as it's not distinct. It's a very emotive phrase that provides nothing of meaning. What do you mean by superior? What do you mean by conscious? By existence?
2 Explanations are not questions. A question is evidence of nothing
3 "experienced God" is incorrect: you're trying to include the conclusion in the question
4 Already answered
5 Refutes your god-claim
6 Silly.
Aaron1975melbourne 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush I will respond to all 6 of your claims.
1. I have no idea what your statement means.
2. In the same way that we explain all other phenomenon.
3. Would that include the history of the people who experience witchcraft, ghosts, and aliens?
4. I have no idea what your statement means.
5. What evidence do you have that the universe "began" to exist?
6. I have no idea what your statement means.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush stop for a moment.Think about the questions.
globalarte 4 weeks ago
@globalarte Already answered them. One was, How does a human explain what a God does? We can't. So why are you asking for evidence of something that can't be explained through science? Do you see how stupid atheism really is? A giant cult of skepticism. Who's your leader? Dawkins the prejudice bigot?
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush That's also very silly.
If you can't explain how a deity acts, then how can you therefore conclude that it's the deity that does the action? Ultimately, you would still need to demonstrate that the deity exists in the first place. You could show that by showing what it does and how, but you can't do that either. So you can't show existence, you can't show action, you can't show anything, can you?
Aaron1975melbourne 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush No you did not.
Please ...go straight to the point answer these questions.
1. Define God
2. Explain how God has done what he has done.
3. Provide evidence for God.
4. Provide evidence that the laws of physics can be suspended.
5. Explain why the universe needed a creator.
6. Make a falsifiable claim.
7. How do we know that your particular god is real and Vishnu or Indra aren't.
globalarte 4 weeks ago
@CompleteRationality How would you feel if on the stand in a courtroom, facing judgment for a crime you didn't commit and the only witness to your innocence is dead or missing?
Do you think that the only physicals laws we perceive are the only laws of science? What the human mind can't perceive, atheists try to make up an excuse using something they can't explain it with anyway. You bunch of hypocrites!
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Stop trolling already...
geyza0711 4 weeks ago
@geyza0711 Eh you can't take it when someone pwns you is all. Go cry to Mamma.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush In response to your proposed analogy, are you suggesting that we should by default, accept all claims in court along the lines of "There were witnesses to my innocence, but they are no longer alive"? Also, do you think we would be acquitting guilty people of charges more than we would the innocent if we operated in this manner?
As far as scientific laws go, I don't know what your point is. Give me an example of an excuse that "atheists" use please.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
@CompleteRationality Atheists use scientific theories to support their arguments against God. Theories. (LAME)
For example: Naturalism.
Naturalism does not explain all phenomena. We can't assume that it ever will.
Dark Matter: The so-called "Theory of Everything" does not predict and does not understand what this substance is. What about unknown laws of physics? You only have what humans perceive to go by.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush Naturalism does not purport to explain anything, so you're not making a point. Again, the lack of an explanation for something does not vindicate a baseless assertion.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago
@CompleteRationality If you claim by use of the laws of physics in science that God does not exist because of the lack of evidence for the unexplained, then you are using Naturalism as an argument altogether.
CanvasSkinRazorBrush 4 weeks ago
@CanvasSkinRazorBrush OK listen, this video has nothing to do with the existence of a God. I would be glad to have a conversation with you via PM's where the replies are not limited by character limit and are not unrelated to the video.
CompleteRationality 4 weeks ago