Reality is relative to the mind of the one who experiences it. If one man sees and believes in something, in his reality it may exist to everybody. We experience reality with our minds, and all minds can be fooled
@sdkowalik95 Doesn't that logic mean that every statement about anything is meaningless? There must be a concrete reality and truth, or else there's no point in discussing or even observing anything. This is not the Matrix, there is physical mass which exists.
Holy Crap, are you still devoting all of your energy HATEING Christians? Why? I have yet heard you bash other religions? You should HATE ALL religions equally! Come on, lets bash some jews, or muslims, or hindu's, or hey....lets HATE buddha! Or how about the other thousands of religions out there. Just say "I don't beleive in God" and move on to some fun stuff. It is pointless arguing about something no one on earth can prove either way? Get it? Your wasting your life on HATE for no reason!
It's the sunk costs fallacy, a common economic fallacy. The more is spent on something the more valuable it is taken to be, despite the complete lack of a necessary relationship between cost and value..
One could derive an interesting corollary from all this. For example, if a thousand people believed that some idea was true but so happens that a single individual comes up with proof that the idea is wrong we would be witnesses here of proof the notion that it is quality not quantity that matters. So what about democracy. Does this not imply therefore that democracy and the polling process might (and often does) lead to wrong choices?
Alright, nice 'monologue' but I prefer it if you're actually saying something instead of reading aloud. For the rest the point you're making is correct except, but it's better to bring the message as a genuine person.
@OpethToolMetallica I believe he actually does come up with what he's saying but puts it all in a memorable format. He's saying quite a bit in a fashion that's not easily just remembered. Of course, I could be wrong but still, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
gays go to hell it's in the bible hhhmmmm what if you are right and there aint a god ok sooo u got it right there aint a god but what if u died and there was a god hmmm would u rather live ur life never knowing if god is real or believe in him so if u die u wont go to hell i would choose god is real what do u think message me back ppl
The guardians of the afterlife will acknowledge their company's responsibility and say, "We harbor no hard feelings. We apologize for not clearly revealing ourselves to you before."
Great minds have attempted to turn lead into gold, and many years passed and still they couldn't produce any gold. Nobody today gets offended by that fact, so why do people get offended when somebody states the obvious that God probably doesn't exist?
@ambygirl1008 It's not the statement that God probably doesn't exist, it's the statement that God most definitely and undoubtedly does not exist, whether you like it or not.
Though, that really depends on what god we're referring to here.
I agree with 90% of your video. The concept of quality being greater then quantity and that ideas should not be qualified based on how long they have been around or how many people hold to them. BUT the exchange you mentioned at the very start of this video is really un-related. The first person was stating an opinion on a subject that is a major debate topic BECAUSE there is reasonable arguments on both sides. If a theist made the first statement would you be criticizing the atheists sarcasm?
I strongly agree regarding the Quantity being more accepted then QUALITY which is what SHOULD be appended. Certainly, to a small degree, positivism has benificial aspects (if anything, the person FEELS better because they BELIEVE they feel better...it's willful ignorance of one's own suffering). About the only time quantity is superior then quality is when dealing with viruses and other maledictions (like war, religion, etc, ad neaseum). Fortunately, science does wonderfully at curing viruses...
It was Lenin who said "quantity has its own quality" and the second world war proved him right. The German tanks were far superiour to wat the Americans and Russians had, but they were vastly outnumbered. When it comes to weapons quantity has its own quality!
It doesn't matter how great an idea sounds if it can't be supported by real observable testable evidence than it's wrong and it doesn't matter who thought of it or how beautiful it looks on paper. There has to be supporting evidence. You can't just make stuff up and expect it to be that way in reality just because you believe it or say it's so. That's madness, that's religion., that's not truth, not reality.
See Pascal, Wittgenstein, Thomas Aquinas, CS Lewis, Augustin Cauchy, and so on. Your hero, Dawkins, is a drooling idiot in comparison to these. Yet atheists listen intently to his illogical drivel and applaud wildly.
And by the way, the Lord of the Flies was NOT a human leader of the boys in Golding's novel. Don't embarrass yourself publicly any further with your ignorance.
@kmsoileau I am astounded at YOUR ignorance. If you are not aware that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related, then there is no need for this conversation to continue because it clearly shows that you have no idea that you are talking about. First, you can Google studies done on this very subject (they are numerous) and there is no dispute. Also, if you Google "Least likely to believe in religion", the response is INTELLIGENT PEOPLE!! Just because YOU ignore it doesn't make it true.
@kmsoileau The FACT that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related is not something that you can question. Especially since you have access to Google and it is completely clear. So, if you refuse to ignore this evidence then that is fine, but don't respond acting like what you believe is correct and I have gotten my facts wrong. I have Googled it and I know what is there. Why don't you stop and actually look before you respond with another ridiculous statement.
@kmsoileau Since it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning Religiosity vs Intellect, and the fact that you actually said that "I don't let the facts get in my way", it makes me wonder how MANY incorrect or inaccurate things you might believe. You didn't even bother to look up the relationship between Religion and Intellect but just said that I was ignorant and didn't know. I hope that you have now Googled it and can see the light.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "said that I was ignorant" Actually, my remark was referring to your ignorant reference to Golding's novel. Guess you jumped the gun with your accusation, didn't you?
@kmsoileau You said "Don't embarrass yourself publicly any further with your ignorance.". Oh, the irony. I am sure by now that you have seen (since you Googled it) that what you said was complete nonsense. You cannot dispute that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related. Also, while you are at it, go ahead and Google "Major studies on prayer effects". You probably think you know that also without looking, just like you did on the relationship between religion and intelligence.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related." You are misapplying the studies. We're not discussing "religiousity." We are discussing the logical basis for belief in a spiritual realm. What matters is the fact that some of the premier intellects in history have been believers, which implies that there is nothing intrinsically stupid about belief, as you seem to be insinuating.
@kmsoileau The purpose of the "Lord of the Flies" analogy was to draw a relationship to you being elected "King" by a group of children (just the way religious people might elect you to be their speaker due to your high intellect). Maybe it was a poor analogy but I think you get my point. Also, it is completely ridiculous to ask Google if God exists. YOU and I BOTH know that. However, Intellect vs Religion is something you can actually examine. I knew you would try to rationalize. Typical.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "Intellect vs Religion" Your "intellect vs religiousity" point is irrelevant. "intellect vs religiousity" reflects on human psychology and cultural influences, it isn't authoritative as a judge of the rationality of belief. Lots of intelligent people a hundred years ago scoffed at the idea that the subatomic world is ruled by quantum mechanics. Did that in any way reflect on the actual validity of quantum theory? I think not.
@kmsoileau Most people (especially less intelligent people) would not have even heard about quantum mechanics or string theory a hundred years ago, let alone what it involved. Since less intelligent people would be ignorant of any quantum theory, an informed decision would not be possible. So those misguided INTELLIGENT people of a hundred years ago would still have a more informed and reasoned viewpoint then the less intelligent people of that time who knew nothing of the subatomic world.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "a more informed and reasoned viewpoint then the less intelligent people of that time" True, but irrelevant. The point is that the most intelligent persons can still fail to grasp the truth; this is a reflection on them, not on what is in fact the truth.
@kmsoileau I said that "Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related" and you said "You don't let the facts get in your way" and you left examples why it wasn't true. I then proved that they were inversely related and when I proved you wrong then your response was that 'it was irrelevant'. I have explained in detail the reason why the comparison between religion and intellect are relevant. If you refuse to accept it then there is nothing that I can do. I wish you the best.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "I have explained in detail the reason why the comparison between religion and intellect are relevant." Actually you haven't. I gave you a counterargument and you just ignored it.
"If you refuse to accept it then there is nothing that I can do."
Your patronizing attitude has grown quite tiresome. You can't make a case for your opinion, so when I don't agree with you you assume that it's because I refuse to accept it. That is inappropriate to adult debate.
@kmsoileau First you said I was 'inaccurate', then when you found out I was accurate you said the information was irrelevant. How completely ironic. I can understand why this grows tiresome for you. You are unable to refute what I say and I have clearly pointed that out. So you resort to giving me a subtle insult about my maturity level. That is fine and typical of someone without valid arguments. Good 'luck' to you also.
@kmsoileau I restrained from making a response to your irrelevant mathematical post made to me about unchanging truths. I never replied because my first judgement of you was actually very well accurate. And after reading through your whole little debate with CynicalSkeptic1,you still have failed to refute ZJ's arguments. Your posts became progressively stupid as I read through them actually. Still can't fathom how such eloquence can entail such horrible logic.
@MaterialBoyx3 I don't know where you learned about debate, but a long-winded sequence of statements equivalent to saying "you're wrong" does not constitute an argument. You have to actually explain HOW and WHY your opponent is wrong. LOL
@MaterialBoyx3 "I restrained from making a response to your irrelevant mathematical post made to me about unchanging truths." LOL It could only be irrelevant if you don't consider mathematics to be unchanging truth. Either that, or you just didn't understand the proof and are too proud to admit it. Have a nice day.
@kmsoileau Just another quotation from Google: Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted virtually all higher IQ countries.
Just curious, did you read any of "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark"? It is very enlightening.
@kmsoileau Who is out of ideas? I just proved you completely wrong and you still insist you are right. They call that "delusion". I most certainly am not misapplying the studies. The definition of Religiosity is "The quality of being religious" and that is the "belief in a spiritual realm" such as God or Zeus or Thor. There have been FAR more 'premier' intellects who have no belief in God. You can't be a good religious person without excellent rationalization skills.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "There have been FAR more 'premier' intellects who have no belief in God." Irrelevant, even if true, which you certainly cannot demonstrate, since you have not interviewed every 'premier intellect' to verify your claim. All that implies is that there is nothing intrinsically stupid about skepticism. Just as there is nothing intrinsically stupid about belief in a spiritual realm.
@kmsoileau If you admitted that my comparison between religion and intellect has any relevance then you would be conceding that (overall) a thinking person rejects belief in a spiritual world. Believing in a spiritual world requires faith. Faith is defined as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". My rejection of theistic claims is based on skepticism, logic, and reasoning.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "a thinking person rejects belief in a spiritual world" Since lots of undeniably brilliant and presumably "thinking" persons have and do believe in a spiritual world, your assertion is undeniably false.
@kmsoileau People with lower intelligence (on a whole) are drawn to religious beliefs. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, even with your rationale. Also, in any given situation, the more intelligent people are bound to have a more informed and reasoned viewpoint than the less intelligent people. The smart money (pun intended) would be on the intelligent people.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "People with lower intelligence (on a whole) are drawn to religious beliefs." People with lower intelligence (on a whole) like hamburgers. Does this in any way invalidate hamburgers as a source of nutrients? Frankly, I find your application of population statistics to a philosophical problem to be somewhat misguided.
@kmsoileau Did you Google "prayer effect studies"? This is one more example that shows how it is silly to believe in an invisible magic man. Just like the FACT that religiosity and intellect are inversely related. To ask Google if God exists is like asking if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. But as far as something tangible like a comparison of religion and intellect, this is easily provable as long as you don't try to distort the information through Religious-Blinding-Goggles.
@CynicalSkeptic1 You accuse me of a lot of things, but you don't know anything about me. I have tried to keep the discussion non-personal and rational. Do you find this offensive? I'm interested only in a vigorous logical debate. What are you interested in? Validation of your opinions?
@kmsoileau One last thing, why don't you Google "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" and see what you think. You have perfected your rationalization skills so maybe you can read it with your goggles on and ignore most of the information. Seriously though, if you are a pragmatic thinker (with an open mind) then you might be enlightened. It is a shame that this conversation is so adversarial, I think that we could be friends despite our contradicting beliefs.
I think one of the problems is people make others "wrong" all the time. When people are wrong about something, others start to blame them and tell them how wrong they are, and use it against them in other arguments. I think the problem is people can't be wrong without being blamed.
I think that maybe the topic was not tackled correctly in the video. It is possible that the person, instead of saying "these people have spent too long thinking about it so it must be right" he meant "you think you can be better as a thinker than all those people who have come before you?"
It's still a non-answer and a stupid rebutal but It's just the way I would take such a comment.
Your video basically says, what's important is being correct, not having worked hard. Sure. If we had an infallible test of which assertions are correct, and which aren't you'd have an admirable point. But since we don't, you don't. You gloss over the issue of correctness and substitute evidence and the scientific method, which is basically an iterative procedure that will never actually verify anything as being correct. It merely provides a sequence of theories to approximate reality.
"You gloss over the issue of correctness and substitute evidence and the scientific method,"
i didn't see that at all...
"which is basically an iterative procedure that will never actually verify anything as being correct. It merely provides a sequence of theories to approximate reality."
ah so you have a more reliable alternative? please enlighten us to your method that provides better understanding of the universe than science.
@Arteanor Whether I personally have an alternative is beside the point. The point is that the scientific method, while very useful, is routinely oversold as a reliable way to discern truth from falsehood. It is not.
"Whether I personally have an alternative is beside the point."
no, it IS the point. it is the BEST we have. and until you provide something BETTER were gonna keep doing it.
"The point is that the scientific method, while very useful, is routinely oversold as a reliable way to discern truth from falsehood. It is not
this is entirely incorrect. i defy you to provide a better method of discerning fact from fiction than the peer review process of science. or just stop whining. it works
@Arteanor Again, it doesn't matter whether I have an alternative or not. My knowledge, and your knowledge I might add, does not define the limitations of science. Logic does.
By your "reasoning," the fact that smart people have labored for centuries to determine the physical laws of the universe doesn't warrant any continued effort in that direction, since they haven't completed the job. By your reasoning, there is no validity to the claim that the universe runs according to rules that we might eventually figure out and understand, simply because we haven't completely figured them out in totality.
@kmsoileau "By your "reasoning," the fact that smart people have labored for centuries to determine the physical laws of the universe doesn't warrant any continued effort in that direction, since they haven't completed the job."
If their claims have always, reliably hinged upon completely evidence-free speculation, and were often even contradicted by the available evidence? Yeah, I'd have no problem telling them to abandon the present course they've locked themselves into.
@ZJemptv Your childlike faith in "evidence" is cute, but not very wise. The ancient Greeks had "evidence" that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Nowadays we have a good laugh at their expense.
@kmsoileau Yeah, we certainly ridicule their very use of any of the available evidence of the time to develop a model of the workings of nature, because using evidence is for twits.
@ZJemptv I like the way you dodge the main point, and that is that a theory is just that, not fact, and subject to change. Whereas truth is unchanging.
@kmsoileau But that is an objective truth we came to by subjective means. No? That knowledge itself is warranted and if there has been no reason to abandon it since, then we may still accept it. You simply are being quite silly. ZJ did not dodge your main point, you just did not understand hers.
@MaterialBoyx3 "But that is an objective truth we came to by subjective means. No?"
Uh, no. The proof is objective:
Suppose the square root of 2 is rational. Then there exist integers p and q such that sqrt(2)=p/q. We may assume p and q have no common divisor > 1. It follows that 2=p^2/q^2, i.e. p^2=2*q^2. p^2 is even, so p is even. Thus there exists r such that p=2*r. Thus 4*r^2=2*q^2, i.e. q^2=2*r^2, so q^2 and q are even, so p and q have 2 as a common divisor, for a contradiction.
@kmsoileau I will have to admit that you are more intelligent than most devout believers. However, you said "The ancient Greeks had 'evidence' that the Sun revolved around the Earth". Well, the Christians have a book that describes ridiculous stories like; Jonah living 3 days in a whale's stomach, Walls of Jericho, Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, Jesus walking on water, Parting of the Red Sea, etc. "Nowadays *rational* people have a laugh at their expense". Do you really believe those stories?
@kmsoileau You have a sense of humor too. Anyhow, my point was that most major religions have stories which are just as ridiculous. Muhammad flying up to the clouds on a magical horse, Mormons who believe in 'magic underwear', etc. For someone who thinks rationally, it is relatively easy to dismiss most religions just by examining the stupidity of their religious stories.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Again, we are not talking about that. The existence of erroneous perception of something does not imply that thing doesn't exist in some form. The existence of a variety of "stupid" or inconsistent notions of a spiritual world does not imply no such world exists, merely that it is difficult to perceive.
@kmsoileau I completely disagree with that statement. When you have a 'variety of stupid or inconsistent notions' then it would appear to a logical person that the existence of any such God would be as likely as the stories that accompany that God. The more ridiculous your argument, the less likely anyone will even attempt to 'perceive' it. If I were to use that logic, then I could use the same argument for the 'difficulty to perceive' Santa Claus. While it is possible, it is highly unlikely
@CynicalSkeptic1 Your Santa Claus example doesn't fit because we KNOW that Santa Clause is a fictional character, created by humans. We don't KNOW that the idea of a spiritual reality is the creation of humans. The latter is harder to dismiss because there has been a persistent, nearly universal tendency over millennia to believe in a spiritual realm of some kind.
@kmsoileau If a God were actually real, then there would be some kind of consistency about his description. Isn't it ironic that throughout the world that most of the Gods look like the people who worship them. Thor looks like a Viking, Allah / Muhammad wears a Turban, etc. If God were reality I think that there would be some consistency. At least there is some agreement in Santa's appearance, much more so than God. I think we will just have to agree to disagree once more.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "If a God were actually real, then there would be some kind of consistency about his description." I don't agree that that is logical. After all, the science of today looks totally different than the science of 1000 years ago. Does this mean that science is the creation of man, and that science does not have any objective reality? I think not.
@kmsoileau Totally irrelevant and I will tell you why, If a man of 2,000 years ago were to describe an elephant, it would be exactly the same description as a man of present time. The elephant is the same no matter where it was located. But God looks different just based upon the geographic location that you reside and/or religion that you practice. It would appear that your claim is completely refuted.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "It would appear that your claim is completely refuted." LOL what you lack in reason, you make up for in confidence. An elephant is subject to our natural five senses, so of course it is possible to give a coherent description based on these five senses. Science is entirely different and more subtle, and gives its secrets only after careful and precise observation. The spiritual world is apparently even more subtle.
@kmsoileau I talk about what the REAL world contains and you talk about a 'spirit' world, but you say that MY argument lacks reason. That is truly laughable. You are right in one respect, the 'spiritual world' IS much more subtle (as in non-existent).
@CynicalSkeptic1 It may feel good to you to make unfounded claims such as "'spiritual world' IS much more subtle (as in non-existent)" but that's all it is, "feeling" and emotion. You have no logic behind your declaration. Good luck in your emotional world of irrationality.
@kmsoileau Because God is based on facts and evidence? I think that anyone reading our posts can see who is deluded. Also, good luck to you in your spirit world.
@CynicalSkeptic1 "Most people" believe in a spiritual realm of some kind. So if the goal is to get agreement from "most people," as an atheist you lost at the outset.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Apparently your cheering team of "rational people" are strangely silent, since no one has come to your aid as you have lost this debate with me. Your "rationality" is a figment of your imagination, because your "arguments" are easily knocked down by logic and then you retreat to elitist swagger when you run out of ideas. If your ego requires that you regard yourself as smarter than most people, have at it.
@kmsoileau I have lost the debate? That seems like a unilateral decision on your part. The only 'figments of imagination' are those that are exhibited from belief in religion. There is a reason that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related, you just happen to be an exception. I imagine that you would be 'Lord of the flies' if they were going to elect one. There is also a reason that studies have shown prayer is completely ineffective. Facts are on my side, spirits are on yours...
@dutchbb1979 As opposed to you, who cannot even reason, only call others imbeciles. But thanks for taking time out from your hectic masturbation schedule to post in support of ZJ.
Again, you expose your ignorance. I'm not gay. Anyone who isn't a child can reason that you don't necessarily need to be something just in order to support it. Do you support blacks being owned by whites as slaves, or do you support their equal rights? I support their equal rights, and I'm white. Making any sense to that pebble rattling around inside your skull yet? Look, I'm sorry to hear that evolution just didn't give you much of a thought process, but I'm done spelling shit out for you. Bye.
@pumarunner88 My ignorance? Your contribution to the discourse so far has been to call me a pseudo intellectual and other names. Not that I mind, because I'm used to mediocre intellects such as yours and I'm well versed in their limited repertoire. One day if you ever reach mental puberty, you might realize that unless you have ideas to contribute, calling others names just shows how mentally deficient you really are. Good luck wallowing in your present and future mediocrity...
@kmsoileau Yeah, and people like yourself think that subscribing to dictionary. com's "word of the day" program makes you intelligent. I hate to break it to you, but making it so plainly obvious that you are going out of your way to use complex terms just to sound smarter doesn't mean that you actually do.
@pumarunner88 Sadly, "cat" and "dog" are "complex terms" to an idiot like yourself. I can't trim my vocabulary down far enough for a Forrest Gump like yourself to feel comfortable with it.
@kmsoileau Dude... okay. I get it. I can't really judge you based on a few comments on a youtube video, nor can you with me. For either of us to think that is just be arrogant. I think it's time to just let it go. Have a good one.
@Arteanor One good reason why people need to know which strangers are male and which are female, is that if I accidentally brush up against a female, in today's hyper-feminist society, I can be sued for "sexual harrassment," or "sexual battery" or some such nonsense. If I accidentally brush up against a male, I am not under the same hazard.
"is that if I accidentally brush up against a female, in today's hyper-feminist society, I can be sued for "sexual harrassment," or "sexual battery" or some such nonsense." uh no you cannot. that is NOT how the law works, check yourself.
"If I accidentally brush up against a male, I am not under the same hazard."
says fucking who? you are JUST as susceptible to being charged with sexual misconduct crimes with your own sex... within the confines of the law. get real dude. READ.
Soooooooooooo true! I love this video, thankyou thankyou thankyou! You have stated it the way I like it, I wishthat more people would wake up and realize this too!
@Iessthannothing That sort of thing generally seems to me as a bit too much of an attempt to try to shift the discussion away from the argument to instead attack the character of the one presenting it. If an argument is sound it doesn’t matter who the person presenting it is.
When you cannot back something up or present any good arguments for something the fact that you and others have put a lot of thought into said something is not in itself an argument in favour of it.
@Iessthannothing The point is still valid though. The fact that people have spent a lot of time and work on an idea does not naturally make that idea true. A great number of very clever people have throughout history spent a lot of time and work on things like astrology and alchemy, this does not lend either of them more credence.
That people have spent a lot of time and work on an idea is not in itself a sufficient argument in favour of that idea.
The problem with Christians is that they remain 'right' when they have been proven wrong. The fact that they believe in something that cannot be proven real also means it cannot be proven false.
That is why I consider an argument with a Christian over when I hear the words, "Well, you just have to have faith."
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
so long story short you know everything and everyone is wrong but you? Ahh.. NOW it makes sense :D heh heh, knowing big words dosent make you souund smarter dude, it just lets everyone know tht you may be possibly kind of a big jerk i guess?... just sayin..
Knowledge = Effort x (Intelligence ^ Facts)
Religion = Effort x (Faith ^ Denial)
KittenKoder 1 day ago
that is so true i wish there were more people like you
pharoahjimhotep 1 week ago
If I ever feel like I need some mental reinvigoration this is my go-to youtuber.
Love ya Zinnia.
SquekyMice 1 month ago
Why do you hate the Piltdown-Man!?!?
Bastmosis 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
ZJ, please do a playlist of your favourite classical music!
GDOBSSOR 2 months ago
Excellent :-) Loved the grenade full of swords analogy :D
signingupiseasyd 3 months ago
Reality is relative to the mind of the one who experiences it. If one man sees and believes in something, in his reality it may exist to everybody. We experience reality with our minds, and all minds can be fooled
sdkowalik95 4 months ago
@sdkowalik95 Doesn't that logic mean that every statement about anything is meaningless? There must be a concrete reality and truth, or else there's no point in discussing or even observing anything. This is not the Matrix, there is physical mass which exists.
TheSamuraiGoomba 2 months ago
Great job! Excellent use of rhetorical strategies.
MYOTHERCARISYOURWIFE 4 months ago
Holy Crap, are you still devoting all of your energy HATEING Christians? Why? I have yet heard you bash other religions? You should HATE ALL religions equally! Come on, lets bash some jews, or muslims, or hindu's, or hey....lets HATE buddha! Or how about the other thousands of religions out there. Just say "I don't beleive in God" and move on to some fun stuff. It is pointless arguing about something no one on earth can prove either way? Get it? Your wasting your life on HATE for no reason!
habitualstudios 4 months ago
@habitualstudios Hey, shut up and LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
-What you said, translated.
Minecraft4life1000 4 months ago
I just enjoy the idea of theists wasting their lives really. I don't need more than that.
Vortex289 5 months ago
It's the sunk costs fallacy, a common economic fallacy. The more is spent on something the more valuable it is taken to be, despite the complete lack of a necessary relationship between cost and value..
newperve 5 months ago
Thank you, Zinnia. Your arguments are concise and sound.
ratfriend1 6 months ago
@ZJemptv
One could derive an interesting corollary from all this. For example, if a thousand people believed that some idea was true but so happens that a single individual comes up with proof that the idea is wrong we would be witnesses here of proof the notion that it is quality not quantity that matters. So what about democracy. Does this not imply therefore that democracy and the polling process might (and often does) lead to wrong choices?
What do you say?
azzy314159 6 months ago
how the fuck did i get here?
raiden0534 6 months ago
u a man.
tuscanyiscol 7 months ago
"a giant grenade full of swords"! brilliant
ahtaimo 7 months ago
transgender??? haha only reason why im watching ur video cuss i want to know gu or girl??
fillmyheart62 8 months ago
A giant grenade full of swords? I realised something after hearing you say that. I love you.
TheCeejReturns 8 months ago 2
Totally out of this solar system.
mastercarrera 8 months ago
Alright, nice 'monologue' but I prefer it if you're actually saying something instead of reading aloud. For the rest the point you're making is correct except, but it's better to bring the message as a genuine person.
OpethToolMetallica 8 months ago
@OpethToolMetallica I believe he actually does come up with what he's saying but puts it all in a memorable format. He's saying quite a bit in a fashion that's not easily just remembered. Of course, I could be wrong but still, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
empressleo 8 months ago
People engaged in honest endeavor will likely not waste time cursing a mistake, but learn from it and adjust their method.
marasu66 8 months ago
gays go to hell it's in the bible hhhmmmm what if you are right and there aint a god ok sooo u got it right there aint a god but what if u died and there was a god hmmm would u rather live ur life never knowing if god is real or believe in him so if u die u wont go to hell i would choose god is real what do u think message me back ppl
462grant 9 months ago
The guardians of the afterlife will acknowledge their company's responsibility and say, "We harbor no hard feelings. We apologize for not clearly revealing ourselves to you before."
marasu66 8 months ago
@462grant Cannot tell if trolling or genuinely lacking a brain.
TellingItLikeItIsSJM 8 months ago
"like a giant grenade full of swords" rofl! omg im so using that.
esplin227 9 months ago
IM TRYING TO CONCENTRATE ON YOUR WORDS, BUT YOUR APPEARANCE IS REALLY THROWING MY FOCUS OFF...LOL.
scubacat 9 months ago
@scubacat
Hot, right?
SirDeathDark 9 months ago
@SirDeathDark
Not really.
OpethToolMetallica 8 months ago
I feel imprisoned by opinions, yours and mine.
Lisarata 10 months ago
I like how you counter an logical fallacy with a circular argument.
jedimouse 10 months ago
Great minds have attempted to turn lead into gold, and many years passed and still they couldn't produce any gold. Nobody today gets offended by that fact, so why do people get offended when somebody states the obvious that God probably doesn't exist?
ambygirl1008 1 year ago
@ambygirl1008 It's not the statement that God probably doesn't exist, it's the statement that God most definitely and undoubtedly does not exist, whether you like it or not.
Though, that really depends on what god we're referring to here.
AdonTimasu 10 months ago
Lol you sound like a real life Sheldon Cooper!! :-)
stJek 1 year ago
everyone is gay for Zinnia.
sarahbright82 1 year ago
what the fk are you?
papercut272 1 year ago
I agree with 90% of your video. The concept of quality being greater then quantity and that ideas should not be qualified based on how long they have been around or how many people hold to them. BUT the exchange you mentioned at the very start of this video is really un-related. The first person was stating an opinion on a subject that is a major debate topic BECAUSE there is reasonable arguments on both sides. If a theist made the first statement would you be criticizing the atheists sarcasm?
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
someone please verify this person's sex... i think the "phallus-ee" is between "her" legs...
Juggalowlyfe 1 year ago
U are a disgusting faggot
stardonuts 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stardonuts I know you are, but what am I?
Bardlettt 1 year ago
I strongly agree regarding the Quantity being more accepted then QUALITY which is what SHOULD be appended. Certainly, to a small degree, positivism has benificial aspects (if anything, the person FEELS better because they BELIEVE they feel better...it's willful ignorance of one's own suffering). About the only time quantity is superior then quality is when dealing with viruses and other maledictions (like war, religion, etc, ad neaseum). Fortunately, science does wonderfully at curing viruses...
mdlittle5466 1 year ago
It was Lenin who said "quantity has its own quality" and the second world war proved him right. The German tanks were far superiour to wat the Americans and Russians had, but they were vastly outnumbered. When it comes to weapons quantity has its own quality!
wisemasterful 1 year ago
It doesn't matter how great an idea sounds if it can't be supported by real observable testable evidence than it's wrong and it doesn't matter who thought of it or how beautiful it looks on paper. There has to be supporting evidence. You can't just make stuff up and expect it to be that way in reality just because you believe it or say it's so. That's madness, that's religion., that's not truth, not reality.
scotty 1 year ago
This is a really great video. I can't believe I never saw it before. Thumbs up, and cheers!
Skierkowa 1 year ago
"Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related"
LOL You never let facts get in your way, do you?
See Pascal, Wittgenstein, Thomas Aquinas, CS Lewis, Augustin Cauchy, and so on. Your hero, Dawkins, is a drooling idiot in comparison to these. Yet atheists listen intently to his illogical drivel and applaud wildly.
And by the way, the Lord of the Flies was NOT a human leader of the boys in Golding's novel. Don't embarrass yourself publicly any further with your ignorance.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I am astounded at YOUR ignorance. If you are not aware that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related, then there is no need for this conversation to continue because it clearly shows that you have no idea that you are talking about. First, you can Google studies done on this very subject (they are numerous) and there is no dispute. Also, if you Google "Least likely to believe in religion", the response is INTELLIGENT PEOPLE!! Just because YOU ignore it doesn't make it true.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Why don't we just ask Google if God exists? LOL Really, it's abundantly obvious you are completely out of ideas.
By the way, did you Google "Lord of the Flies" to correct your ignorant reference to it in an earlier post?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau The FACT that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related is not something that you can question. Especially since you have access to Google and it is completely clear. So, if you refuse to ignore this evidence then that is fine, but don't respond acting like what you believe is correct and I have gotten my facts wrong. I have Googled it and I know what is there. Why don't you stop and actually look before you respond with another ridiculous statement.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Since it is abundantly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about concerning Religiosity vs Intellect, and the fact that you actually said that "I don't let the facts get in my way", it makes me wonder how MANY incorrect or inaccurate things you might believe. You didn't even bother to look up the relationship between Religion and Intellect but just said that I was ignorant and didn't know. I hope that you have now Googled it and can see the light.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "said that I was ignorant" Actually, my remark was referring to your ignorant reference to Golding's novel. Guess you jumped the gun with your accusation, didn't you?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau You said "Don't embarrass yourself publicly any further with your ignorance.". Oh, the irony. I am sure by now that you have seen (since you Googled it) that what you said was complete nonsense. You cannot dispute that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related. Also, while you are at it, go ahead and Google "Major studies on prayer effects". You probably think you know that also without looking, just like you did on the relationship between religion and intelligence.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related." You are misapplying the studies. We're not discussing "religiousity." We are discussing the logical basis for belief in a spiritual realm. What matters is the fact that some of the premier intellects in history have been believers, which implies that there is nothing intrinsically stupid about belief, as you seem to be insinuating.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau The purpose of the "Lord of the Flies" analogy was to draw a relationship to you being elected "King" by a group of children (just the way religious people might elect you to be their speaker due to your high intellect). Maybe it was a poor analogy but I think you get my point. Also, it is completely ridiculous to ask Google if God exists. YOU and I BOTH know that. However, Intellect vs Religion is something you can actually examine. I knew you would try to rationalize. Typical.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "Intellect vs Religion" Your "intellect vs religiousity" point is irrelevant. "intellect vs religiousity" reflects on human psychology and cultural influences, it isn't authoritative as a judge of the rationality of belief. Lots of intelligent people a hundred years ago scoffed at the idea that the subatomic world is ruled by quantum mechanics. Did that in any way reflect on the actual validity of quantum theory? I think not.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Most people (especially less intelligent people) would not have even heard about quantum mechanics or string theory a hundred years ago, let alone what it involved. Since less intelligent people would be ignorant of any quantum theory, an informed decision would not be possible. So those misguided INTELLIGENT people of a hundred years ago would still have a more informed and reasoned viewpoint then the less intelligent people of that time who knew nothing of the subatomic world.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "a more informed and reasoned viewpoint then the less intelligent people of that time" True, but irrelevant. The point is that the most intelligent persons can still fail to grasp the truth; this is a reflection on them, not on what is in fact the truth.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I said that "Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related" and you said "You don't let the facts get in your way" and you left examples why it wasn't true. I then proved that they were inversely related and when I proved you wrong then your response was that 'it was irrelevant'. I have explained in detail the reason why the comparison between religion and intellect are relevant. If you refuse to accept it then there is nothing that I can do. I wish you the best.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "I have explained in detail the reason why the comparison between religion and intellect are relevant." Actually you haven't. I gave you a counterargument and you just ignored it.
"If you refuse to accept it then there is nothing that I can do."
Your patronizing attitude has grown quite tiresome. You can't make a case for your opinion, so when I don't agree with you you assume that it's because I refuse to accept it. That is inappropriate to adult debate.
Good luck to you.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau First you said I was 'inaccurate', then when you found out I was accurate you said the information was irrelevant. How completely ironic. I can understand why this grows tiresome for you. You are unable to refute what I say and I have clearly pointed that out. So you resort to giving me a subtle insult about my maturity level. That is fine and typical of someone without valid arguments. Good 'luck' to you also.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I restrained from making a response to your irrelevant mathematical post made to me about unchanging truths. I never replied because my first judgement of you was actually very well accurate. And after reading through your whole little debate with CynicalSkeptic1,you still have failed to refute ZJ's arguments. Your posts became progressively stupid as I read through them actually. Still can't fathom how such eloquence can entail such horrible logic.
MaterialBoyx3 1 year ago
@MaterialBoyx3 I don't know where you learned about debate, but a long-winded sequence of statements equivalent to saying "you're wrong" does not constitute an argument. You have to actually explain HOW and WHY your opponent is wrong. LOL
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@MaterialBoyx3 "I restrained from making a response to your irrelevant mathematical post made to me about unchanging truths." LOL It could only be irrelevant if you don't consider mathematics to be unchanging truth. Either that, or you just didn't understand the proof and are too proud to admit it. Have a nice day.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Just another quotation from Google: Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted virtually all higher IQ countries.
Just curious, did you read any of "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark"? It is very enlightening.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Who is out of ideas? I just proved you completely wrong and you still insist you are right. They call that "delusion". I most certainly am not misapplying the studies. The definition of Religiosity is "The quality of being religious" and that is the "belief in a spiritual realm" such as God or Zeus or Thor. There have been FAR more 'premier' intellects who have no belief in God. You can't be a good religious person without excellent rationalization skills.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "There have been FAR more 'premier' intellects who have no belief in God." Irrelevant, even if true, which you certainly cannot demonstrate, since you have not interviewed every 'premier intellect' to verify your claim. All that implies is that there is nothing intrinsically stupid about skepticism. Just as there is nothing intrinsically stupid about belief in a spiritual realm.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau If you admitted that my comparison between religion and intellect has any relevance then you would be conceding that (overall) a thinking person rejects belief in a spiritual world. Believing in a spiritual world requires faith. Faith is defined as a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". My rejection of theistic claims is based on skepticism, logic, and reasoning.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "a thinking person rejects belief in a spiritual world" Since lots of undeniably brilliant and presumably "thinking" persons have and do believe in a spiritual world, your assertion is undeniably false.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau People with lower intelligence (on a whole) are drawn to religious beliefs. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, even with your rationale. Also, in any given situation, the more intelligent people are bound to have a more informed and reasoned viewpoint than the less intelligent people. The smart money (pun intended) would be on the intelligent people.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "People with lower intelligence (on a whole) are drawn to religious beliefs." People with lower intelligence (on a whole) like hamburgers. Does this in any way invalidate hamburgers as a source of nutrients? Frankly, I find your application of population statistics to a philosophical problem to be somewhat misguided.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Did you Google "prayer effect studies"? This is one more example that shows how it is silly to believe in an invisible magic man. Just like the FACT that religiosity and intellect are inversely related. To ask Google if God exists is like asking if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. But as far as something tangible like a comparison of religion and intellect, this is easily provable as long as you don't try to distort the information through Religious-Blinding-Goggles.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 You accuse me of a lot of things, but you don't know anything about me. I have tried to keep the discussion non-personal and rational. Do you find this offensive? I'm interested only in a vigorous logical debate. What are you interested in? Validation of your opinions?
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau One last thing, why don't you Google "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" and see what you think. You have perfected your rationalization skills so maybe you can read it with your goggles on and ignore most of the information. Seriously though, if you are a pragmatic thinker (with an open mind) then you might be enlightened. It is a shame that this conversation is so adversarial, I think that we could be friends despite our contradicting beliefs.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Naturally, you think that anyone who disagrees with you must be closed-minded. LOL How convenient. And ironic.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
I think one of the problems is people make others "wrong" all the time. When people are wrong about something, others start to blame them and tell them how wrong they are, and use it against them in other arguments. I think the problem is people can't be wrong without being blamed.
natedaug1 1 year ago
your a fag bro
Smurffanator 1 year ago
I think that maybe the topic was not tackled correctly in the video. It is possible that the person, instead of saying "these people have spent too long thinking about it so it must be right" he meant "you think you can be better as a thinker than all those people who have come before you?"
It's still a non-answer and a stupid rebutal but It's just the way I would take such a comment.
sadrequiem 1 year ago
Your video basically says, what's important is being correct, not having worked hard. Sure. If we had an infallible test of which assertions are correct, and which aren't you'd have an admirable point. But since we don't, you don't. You gloss over the issue of correctness and substitute evidence and the scientific method, which is basically an iterative procedure that will never actually verify anything as being correct. It merely provides a sequence of theories to approximate reality.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau
"You gloss over the issue of correctness and substitute evidence and the scientific method,"
i didn't see that at all...
"which is basically an iterative procedure that will never actually verify anything as being correct. It merely provides a sequence of theories to approximate reality."
ah so you have a more reliable alternative? please enlighten us to your method that provides better understanding of the universe than science.
Arteanor 1 year ago
@Arteanor Whether I personally have an alternative is beside the point. The point is that the scientific method, while very useful, is routinely oversold as a reliable way to discern truth from falsehood. It is not.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau
"Whether I personally have an alternative is beside the point."
no, it IS the point. it is the BEST we have. and until you provide something BETTER were gonna keep doing it.
"The point is that the scientific method, while very useful, is routinely oversold as a reliable way to discern truth from falsehood. It is not
this is entirely incorrect. i defy you to provide a better method of discerning fact from fiction than the peer review process of science. or just stop whining. it works
Arteanor 1 year ago
@Arteanor Again, it doesn't matter whether I have an alternative or not. My knowledge, and your knowledge I might add, does not define the limitations of science. Logic does.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
Grenade full of swords?! That the Rule of Collateral Awesome by very definition! You win the internet!
grindingtheaxe 1 year ago
By your "reasoning," the fact that smart people have labored for centuries to determine the physical laws of the universe doesn't warrant any continued effort in that direction, since they haven't completed the job. By your reasoning, there is no validity to the claim that the universe runs according to rules that we might eventually figure out and understand, simply because we haven't completely figured them out in totality.
You are such a fucking imbecile...
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau "By your "reasoning," the fact that smart people have labored for centuries to determine the physical laws of the universe doesn't warrant any continued effort in that direction, since they haven't completed the job."
If their claims have always, reliably hinged upon completely evidence-free speculation, and were often even contradicted by the available evidence? Yeah, I'd have no problem telling them to abandon the present course they've locked themselves into.
ZJemptv 1 year ago 15
@ZJemptv Your childlike faith in "evidence" is cute, but not very wise. The ancient Greeks had "evidence" that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Nowadays we have a good laugh at their expense.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Yeah, we certainly ridicule their very use of any of the available evidence of the time to develop a model of the workings of nature, because using evidence is for twits.
And by "we" I mean "you".
ZJemptv 1 year ago 11
@ZJemptv I like the way you dodge the main point, and that is that a theory is just that, not fact, and subject to change. Whereas truth is unchanging.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Truth is unchanging? Interesting point. What would be an example of an unchanged truth?
MaterialBoyx3 1 year ago
@MaterialBoyx3 The square root of two is irrational. Yawn.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau But that is an objective truth we came to by subjective means. No? That knowledge itself is warranted and if there has been no reason to abandon it since, then we may still accept it. You simply are being quite silly. ZJ did not dodge your main point, you just did not understand hers.
MaterialBoyx3 1 year ago
@MaterialBoyx3 "But that is an objective truth we came to by subjective means. No?"
Uh, no. The proof is objective:
Suppose the square root of 2 is rational. Then there exist integers p and q such that sqrt(2)=p/q. We may assume p and q have no common divisor > 1. It follows that 2=p^2/q^2, i.e. p^2=2*q^2. p^2 is even, so p is even. Thus there exists r such that p=2*r. Thus 4*r^2=2*q^2, i.e. q^2=2*r^2, so q^2 and q are even, so p and q have 2 as a common divisor, for a contradiction.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I will have to admit that you are more intelligent than most devout believers. However, you said "The ancient Greeks had 'evidence' that the Sun revolved around the Earth". Well, the Christians have a book that describes ridiculous stories like; Jonah living 3 days in a whale's stomach, Walls of Jericho, Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, Jesus walking on water, Parting of the Red Sea, etc. "Nowadays *rational* people have a laugh at their expense". Do you really believe those stories?
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "I will have to admit that you are more intelligent than most devout believers."
That sounds rather like a left-handed compliment, e.g. "you don't sweat much for a fat guy."
"Well, the Christians have a book that describes ridiculous stories"
What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about the existence of a spiritual reality, not the views of a particular religion.
"Do you really believe those stories?"
What I believe is unimportant. Only ideas are important.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau You have a sense of humor too. Anyhow, my point was that most major religions have stories which are just as ridiculous. Muhammad flying up to the clouds on a magical horse, Mormons who believe in 'magic underwear', etc. For someone who thinks rationally, it is relatively easy to dismiss most religions just by examining the stupidity of their religious stories.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Again, we are not talking about that. The existence of erroneous perception of something does not imply that thing doesn't exist in some form. The existence of a variety of "stupid" or inconsistent notions of a spiritual world does not imply no such world exists, merely that it is difficult to perceive.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I completely disagree with that statement. When you have a 'variety of stupid or inconsistent notions' then it would appear to a logical person that the existence of any such God would be as likely as the stories that accompany that God. The more ridiculous your argument, the less likely anyone will even attempt to 'perceive' it. If I were to use that logic, then I could use the same argument for the 'difficulty to perceive' Santa Claus. While it is possible, it is highly unlikely
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Your Santa Claus example doesn't fit because we KNOW that Santa Clause is a fictional character, created by humans. We don't KNOW that the idea of a spiritual reality is the creation of humans. The latter is harder to dismiss because there has been a persistent, nearly universal tendency over millennia to believe in a spiritual realm of some kind.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau If a God were actually real, then there would be some kind of consistency about his description. Isn't it ironic that throughout the world that most of the Gods look like the people who worship them. Thor looks like a Viking, Allah / Muhammad wears a Turban, etc. If God were reality I think that there would be some consistency. At least there is some agreement in Santa's appearance, much more so than God. I think we will just have to agree to disagree once more.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "If a God were actually real, then there would be some kind of consistency about his description." I don't agree that that is logical. After all, the science of today looks totally different than the science of 1000 years ago. Does this mean that science is the creation of man, and that science does not have any objective reality? I think not.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Totally irrelevant and I will tell you why, If a man of 2,000 years ago were to describe an elephant, it would be exactly the same description as a man of present time. The elephant is the same no matter where it was located. But God looks different just based upon the geographic location that you reside and/or religion that you practice. It would appear that your claim is completely refuted.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "It would appear that your claim is completely refuted." LOL what you lack in reason, you make up for in confidence. An elephant is subject to our natural five senses, so of course it is possible to give a coherent description based on these five senses. Science is entirely different and more subtle, and gives its secrets only after careful and precise observation. The spiritual world is apparently even more subtle.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I talk about what the REAL world contains and you talk about a 'spirit' world, but you say that MY argument lacks reason. That is truly laughable. You are right in one respect, the 'spiritual world' IS much more subtle (as in non-existent).
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 It may feel good to you to make unfounded claims such as "'spiritual world' IS much more subtle (as in non-existent)" but that's all it is, "feeling" and emotion. You have no logic behind your declaration. Good luck in your emotional world of irrationality.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Because God is based on facts and evidence? I think that anyone reading our posts can see who is deluded. Also, good luck to you in your spirit world.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 "Most people" believe in a spiritual realm of some kind. So if the goal is to get agreement from "most people," as an atheist you lost at the outset.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Sorry, my bad, I meant to say "most rational people".
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Apparently your cheering team of "rational people" are strangely silent, since no one has come to your aid as you have lost this debate with me. Your "rationality" is a figment of your imagination, because your "arguments" are easily knocked down by logic and then you retreat to elitist swagger when you run out of ideas. If your ego requires that you regard yourself as smarter than most people, have at it.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau I have lost the debate? That seems like a unilateral decision on your part. The only 'figments of imagination' are those that are exhibited from belief in religion. There is a reason that Religiosity and Intellect are inversely related, you just happen to be an exception. I imagine that you would be 'Lord of the flies' if they were going to elect one. There is also a reason that studies have shown prayer is completely ineffective. Facts are on my side, spirits are on yours...
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@kmsoileau **anyone = most people
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@kmsoileau "You are such a fucking imbecile..." Look who's talking...
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@dutchbb1979 Um, apparently it's you who is talking. And apparently you're an imbecile.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau With your idiotic reasoning you already proved to everyone here you are the real imbecile.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@dutchbb1979 As opposed to you, who cannot even reason, only call others imbeciles. But thanks for taking time out from your hectic masturbation schedule to post in support of ZJ.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Shut up you dumb troll.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
@kmsoileau You are such a pseudo intellectual...
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 You mean like someone who calls someone else a "pseudo intellectual"? Now, THAT's a pseudo intellectual!
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Great comeback. You totally proved me wrong.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 No doubt you are quite accustomed to being proved wrong.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Not by dip shits like yourself.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 Nah, only by gay dipshits like yourself.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
Again, you expose your ignorance. I'm not gay. Anyone who isn't a child can reason that you don't necessarily need to be something just in order to support it. Do you support blacks being owned by whites as slaves, or do you support their equal rights? I support their equal rights, and I'm white. Making any sense to that pebble rattling around inside your skull yet? Look, I'm sorry to hear that evolution just didn't give you much of a thought process, but I'm done spelling shit out for you. Bye.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 My ignorance? Your contribution to the discourse so far has been to call me a pseudo intellectual and other names. Not that I mind, because I'm used to mediocre intellects such as yours and I'm well versed in their limited repertoire. One day if you ever reach mental puberty, you might realize that unless you have ideas to contribute, calling others names just shows how mentally deficient you really are. Good luck wallowing in your present and future mediocrity...
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Yeah, and people like yourself think that subscribing to dictionary. com's "word of the day" program makes you intelligent. I hate to break it to you, but making it so plainly obvious that you are going out of your way to use complex terms just to sound smarter doesn't mean that you actually do.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@pumarunner88 Sadly, "cat" and "dog" are "complex terms" to an idiot like yourself. I can't trim my vocabulary down far enough for a Forrest Gump like yourself to feel comfortable with it.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau Dude... okay. I get it. I can't really judge you based on a few comments on a youtube video, nor can you with me. For either of us to think that is just be arrogant. I think it's time to just let it go. Have a good one.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
@kmsoileau *being arrogant. My mistake.
pumarunner88 1 year ago
truth! you could really put Rush Limp-bag and all those other right wing, gawd loving rednecks in their place!
RedroomStudios 1 year ago
Um. Why are you wearing lipstick?
TKTRiseAgainst 1 year ago
its hard to focus on transgendered people lol
Deioproductions 1 year ago
When you wair earings and lipstick don't complain when people don't know if you are a woman or a guy
lilpeaceacrap 1 year ago
@lilpeaceacrap
he didn't complain.
he complained about people ASKING, since it IS rather none of your business...
think about walking up to a stranger... and asking which genitals they have in their garments.....
it doesn't really matter.... you aren't interested in a relationship where clothing may be optional are you?
this wonderfully knowledgeable and well worded individual also has a rare knack for attracting rockstars to his channel...
first ICP, then David from Disturbed...
Arteanor 1 year ago
@Arteanor One good reason why people need to know which strangers are male and which are female, is that if I accidentally brush up against a female, in today's hyper-feminist society, I can be sued for "sexual harrassment," or "sexual battery" or some such nonsense. If I accidentally brush up against a male, I am not under the same hazard.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau
"is that if I accidentally brush up against a female, in today's hyper-feminist society, I can be sued for "sexual harrassment," or "sexual battery" or some such nonsense." uh no you cannot. that is NOT how the law works, check yourself.
"If I accidentally brush up against a male, I am not under the same hazard."
says fucking who? you are JUST as susceptible to being charged with sexual misconduct crimes with your own sex... within the confines of the law. get real dude. READ.
Arteanor 1 year ago
@Arteanor Uh, no. There are no laws protecting males from sexual harrassment by other males. Check out the gender-biased laws, Dufus.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau
"Uh, no. There are no laws protecting males from sexual harrassment by other males. Check out the gender-biased laws, Dufus."
wow. so it would almost be like raping your own gender would be legal? do you have any idea how stupid you sound. get real dude,
Arteanor 1 year ago
@Arteanor We're talking the law, Dumb Ass, not what I think or what you think.
kmsoileau 1 year ago
@kmsoileau
"We're talking the law, Dumb Ass, not what I think or what you think."
yes, and the LAW doesn't make a distinction of gender. get real kiddo.
Arteanor 1 year ago
I support this idea! Seems like a lazy comment, but you said everything better than I could have at the moment.
Ktech355 1 year ago
not waste; a necessary point of contrast
TheMindsmack 1 year ago
Is this a fucking chick or a dude ? :s
TommLewis420 1 year ago
Mister, are you a he?
ReAliTyxD 1 year ago 2
FAGGOT
MyBuGGLes 1 year ago
DAMN DAWG YOU BE ELOQUENT AS A MOTHAFUCKA WITH YO WELL THOUGHT OUT AND SIMPLY STATED OPINIONS AND SHEEIT! LIKE DAAAAAAAMN!!
smackythefirst 1 year ago 6
@wadehouy fail troll is fail.
smackythefirst 1 year ago
Putting forth more effort works all the time! *Whisper* in anime...
*Astro Boy* I have everything I need to win this battle built into me, so I'll just try harder.
*DBZ* My awesomeness is over 9000 *8000 technically*.
*Bleach* My sword blows, I'll just try harder and it will get stronger and help me.
*Yu Yu Hakusho* I'm dying, but I'll just try harder and use my life energy and win this battle while whittling years off of my life.
*Cowboy Bebop* I'll be flowing water, try harder, and I'll win.
CrimsonComedian 1 year ago
@TonyRJ1989 Yes
infinityms 1 year ago
@wadehouy lol, your idiocy is pathetic.
sillygabbyx 1 year ago
Soooooooooooo true! I love this video, thankyou thankyou thankyou! You have stated it the way I like it, I wishthat more people would wake up and realize this too!
<3
pccrazy1000 1 year ago
What planet do you come from anyway?
You should be the chief negotiator for our local union.
Brilliant display of pure logic kid!
I like it!
Hunzanadrops 1 year ago
lol a Grenade full of Swords?
That is incredibly awesome.
You sir/mam (sorry dont know which you would prefer) are a GENIUS.
IxFrozenTombxI 1 year ago 11
@Iessthannothing That sort of thing generally seems to me as a bit too much of an attempt to try to shift the discussion away from the argument to instead attack the character of the one presenting it. If an argument is sound it doesn’t matter who the person presenting it is.
When you cannot back something up or present any good arguments for something the fact that you and others have put a lot of thought into said something is not in itself an argument in favour of it.
TheHabbadasher 1 year ago
i love his perfect statements and how they put in context to argue a point while never seeming to an actual opinion
Gr33dfuI 1 year ago
omg.... that has to be THE most annoying voice i EVER heard!
SophusxHoney 1 year ago
you a boy or girl....
tallandlong08 1 year ago
WHAT THE SHIT?!?!?!1
RKODestruction 1 year ago
@Iessthannothing The point is still valid though. The fact that people have spent a lot of time and work on an idea does not naturally make that idea true. A great number of very clever people have throughout history spent a lot of time and work on things like astrology and alchemy, this does not lend either of them more credence.
That people have spent a lot of time and work on an idea is not in itself a sufficient argument in favour of that idea.
TheHabbadasher 1 year ago
i like the way you talk, called like err accent?
wateverrrrrrrrrrrrrr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you sound like saddam hussein
ADLER6661 1 year ago
Yeah that's all riveting stuff but what I wanna know is: Silvikrin or Sunsilk?
KnockoffNigeI 1 year ago
What the fuck are you, a man, a girl, an it????
TheMrchargersfan 1 year ago
Basically this video's whole point is about how theology is complete utter bullshit.
supersmash43 1 year ago
The problem with Christians is that they remain 'right' when they have been proven wrong. The fact that they believe in something that cannot be proven real also means it cannot be proven false.
That is why I consider an argument with a Christian over when I hear the words, "Well, you just have to have faith."
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."
- Hugh Laurie as Dr. Gregory House
deadlock241 1 year ago
so long story short you know everything and everyone is wrong but you? Ahh.. NOW it makes sense :D heh heh, knowing big words dosent make you souund smarter dude, it just lets everyone know tht you may be possibly kind of a big jerk i guess?... just sayin..
Navixify 1 year ago