THE ONLY THING THAT ATHEIST BELIEVE IS WHAT THEY SEE WITH THERE OWN EYE'S HOW IRONIC IS THAT ? THAT BASE THERE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY SEE OF THE WORLD AND THE UNIVERSE TO THERE OWN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND NOT THE SPIRITIUAL WORLD OF WHAT THEY DONT SEE ? THAT'S THERE PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST BUT HE DOES IT EXIST ONLY TO THOSE WHO SEEK TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD IN BIBLE. SEEK AND YOU SHOULD FIND KNOCK AND IT WILL BE OPEN SEE THINGS IN THE SPIRIT NOT THE PHYSICAL WORLD
None of your points are in any way a direct infliction on religion in general. In fact, you're even beginning to make Atheism sound like a religion of its own.
None of those conflicts had anything to do with the religions themselves, but with dumbasses misinterpreting their own belief system and becoming "extremists", That's why they're called "extremists"...
Plus, you sound like somebody from Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
This is a response video, so it's true that the points made are tangential to the more general question of whether religion is a good/true thing. I address that in other videos.
As to my accent, well, that's an accident of birth I'm afraid!
i dont mind people being sceptical about it, especially if they were atheists, it goes against their current understanding of the universe.
But i do mind that people who call themslelfs critical and rational thinkers will say stuff like "there is no evidence for a soul" withouth actually looking at the evidence, and if they do look at the evidence they will think of "magic" that would explain the phenomena and say "God did" it, oh sorry i meant "science explained it."
Blind people that never dreamed objects describe what is happening around them while they are out. Lady with blood sucked out of her brain and cooled down to 15 celsius is under operation and she replicates the discussion of a doctor and describes the dril in her head and the box the dril was placed.
Lady has a car crash , exists her body and sees a man comming from another car and turning the lights in her car off.
The question to me is does the worldview allow for the evils we see done in its name. A Christian who murders goes against the teachings of Jesus. If atheism is true, life began to exist and developed through evolution. In this case the traits & beliefs that get passed provide a survival value. How in an evolutionary framework can morality be anything but what has best assisted survival? We were stronger than the American Indians, killed them and took their stuff. What makes this wrong?
I'm an atheist, and I base my morality on reciprocal ethics and consequentialism, using science and reason to better understand both the likely effects of my actions and the consequences of those effects on the experience of individuals.
Morality is best viewed as descriptive, not prescriptive, god saying moral truths doesn't make them any truer than me saying them just because he's more powerful than me. If you try and bridge the fact value gap, you'll have problems.
@JmkLcAeJsm my questions for you are... Is the only reason that it is actually evil to butcher babies that it goes against reciprocal ethics or is the butchering of babies actually, objectively wrong? To humans have value in and of themselves or are we just animals that developed different survival mechanisms, but have no more value objectively than a rat? If two societies differ in ideals (USA vs. Nazi Germany for instance), how do you determine who is right?
Yes it is true, the study by Arthur C. Brooks has shown it , they have also shown that religious americans spend more time with their families and that evangelical Christians are generally the happiest people in America.
As for prison make up, are you telling me that most of believers in prisons are regular church goers?
@niinja2 And studies shows that unhappy and sceptical people are in most cases more intelligent than happy and optimistic people. I honestly think that there is a strong connection between beliefs and intelligence.
@hoshibo there has been some kind of a general study that has shown that atheists are in general 5% more inteligent then theists. Although i would ascribe this result to education since if you are uneducated you are probably going to be a theist, it is the more default position with children.
"strong connection between beliefs and intelligence."
Show me a person taht does not think that. The fact that you cannot understand why someone thinks what he does , does not mean he is stupid.
@niinja2 The reason why I think theist are less intelligent is because they refuse to take in any new information. They do not think for themselves when it comes to cause and effect because to them the cause is always God and they leave it at that.
People in general refuse to take information not because of lack of inteligence but because of fear, emotional investment in a particular idea. Its hard to take new information if it contradicts or attacks what you already believe.
Let me show you.
There is evidence for Gods existence, people who had near death expiriences saw things in this world while they were out of consciousness, People who were blind from birth saw colors and objects. This is proof of a soul.
People hallucinate all kinds of stuff, including the blind, it's only proof that they've hallucinated, not proof that consciousness is somehow divorced from the physical matter of the brain.
And your evidence for this is what? Eyewitness testimony? I think if we're evaluating a claim as big as the existence of an extra-corpereal soul I'm entitled to ask for peer reviewed evidence.
Peer reviewed evidence is all that's acceptable I'm afraid. I'm not in the business of basing my views on documentaries or websites, I like papers published in reputable journals. Through my university I can access pretty much any journals, so please, link me.
Well they talked about this in the unated nations i think there are studies somehwhere, type PMH atwatter.
well i think you know what i mean now, this information is somehow unacceptable even though you cannot explain how the blind lady saw collors and objects. She was blind from birth , she does not hallucinate objects because she never saw them. And this is my point, we somehow reject or place a higher standard of criticism on things we dont like. Q.E.D.
Nah ah, I have the same standards for everything. For mundane claims like 'This guy died' or 'This thing happened' I'll rely on decent news agencies. For big claims like 'Actually, the universe is built like THIS' you surely need to look at the evidence yourself?
I think they're both a little simplistic and polemical. Islamic terrorism is a very complex phenomenon, Islam is only one of several enabling factors. Certainly religion plays a large role in the Yugoslavian conflict as one of the social institutions that re-inforces a mentality of separation and 'otherness' between nations/tribes/groups. Religious identities tend to be exclusive unless tempered with more modern moral ideas.
@JmkLcAeJsm Just checking, you do seem like a type that does not believe anything, but i have met to many atheists that will believe anything if they really want to. Its generally the same with Christians.
@niinja2 And for whom do you think it's harder to accept an idea? -The believer or the logical atheist? Let's say a new theory about the creation of our universe is revealed, do you think that the theist is gonna spend one second reflecting over that? I bet he's just going to ignore it and keep believing in magic.
@niinja2 Evidence of dualism? Atheists are loyal to reason, not to their lack of belief. So if evidence of dualism actually did exist we wouldn't have atheists.
many atheists i speak to are not loyal to reason, but to what they intuitions think is reasonable. In short , if they dont think its reasonable , they reject it even though it might be true. Evidence of dualism does exist but people often reject it without even looking at the evidence, they repeat "there is no evidence " so much that they started to believe it.
@niinja2 That still isn't evidence, it's a study! The logical answer to their experiences isn't that their souls left their bodies but rather brain damage. -- Conclusion was based on my own experiences within the realm of reality. What you're trying to prove is what we call an infallible hypothesis, it can't be proven because it can't tested. -- Same thing is with god.
"it's a study! The logical answer to their experiences isn't that their souls left their bodies but rather brain damage."
how can brain damage cause people to see things happening in real time in the real world while they are out of consciousness , things that happen several floors above or below then, or several hundred meeter away from them?
@niinja2 No it doesn't. They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory. -- Which is more likely but still can't be proven.
Another probable cause is that someone may have told them, which they either lied about or just forgot they were told and thought that it was their own experience due to brain damage. Or maybe the study is done by religious fanatics trying to recruit members.
@niinja2 "They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory. -- Which is more likely but STILL CAN'T BE PROVEN." Is what I said, got it now?
Anyways... It's not an infallible hypothesis since it can be tested if the human memory can be affected by electrical signals, so yeah it's a hell of a lot more likely. Yours on the other hand IS an infallible hypothesis.
"And for whom do you think it's harder to accept an idea? -The believer or the "logical" atheist? Let's say a new theory about the dualism of our universe is revealed, do you think that the atheist is gonna spend one second reflecting over that? I bet he's just going to ignore it and keep believing in magic."
So do you recognize yourself in this?
And theories which explain away NDE you presented are borderline magic
Nde does not have to be true, but you acted as any theist about them
my mission is not to prove to you that soul exists because i know i cannot do that, my mission was to show how will you react to such info, and what your doing now is all the proof i need that atheists are also irational human beings when it comes to defending their wievs about life. You will make up things if it does not fit you.
@niinja2 What? Now you're just proving that theists are retarded. Don't know why my first response hasn't come up yet but I'll write it again.
First off, I said "They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory. -- Which is more likely but still CAN'T BE PROVEN.". Although it could be proven that electrical signals can affect the human memory. Therefore, a RATIONAL HYPOTHESIS.
so you say, a blind person through electical impulses by devices that are not designed to do such a thing , got implemented memories that are coincidentally the same as if the same person saw them with her own eyes.and this is a rational hypothesis....
this is highly improbable to say that it is impossible.
NDE's show that we have part of us that can percieve things while our body is out of consciousness, this can be tested and proven as it was... so its not infallible hypothesis.
Struggling to see the bit of the paper which said that people had verifiable experiences of things that actually happened, and they couldn't have known about when they were out.
I remember a study where Zener cards were placed on top of high surfaces in critical cardiology care wards to see if patients who experienced out of body phenomena could see them. They couldn't, wish I remembered where I saw that...
type pam anderson or pam something and add "nde" into you tube you will get a testimony of a lady that had blood sucked out of her brain and she was able to describe the drill they used to drill her head.
i also heard that doctors place some kind of signs after the surgery starts which you should be able to see if your out of body and nobody reported such a sign. Are you saying they could not see or they did not see these cards, what more do you know about this?
Nothing I'm afraid, may not have even been a proper study (as in, in a reputable journal).
Look, all the NDE stuff is very interesting from a neuroscience standpoint, but I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything supernatural. It's a simple principle, just because we can't see a natural explanation for something doesn't mean it must be supernatural. Imagine if we always did that in science! It'd be a disaster.
@niinja2 The evidence of it happening are as many as there is evidence for their OBE. So you say THAT'S impossible but that their soul leaving their body and having a look around IS POSSIBLE?
IT WASN'T PROVEN!!! SHOW ME THE PROOF!
Here's you proving something... You say "I can fly!", I say "Prove it!" and you say "I just did by saying it to you.". It doesn't work that way. You can't get proof out of someone elses experience, all you can get is someones testimony which isn't enough.
who said obe is impossible, but how do you know that obe isnt when soul leaves your body.
yes it was proven, people saw things they could not see.
i showed you the study , not a testimony , which said blind people saw things while they were uncinsciousness, you made up a bullshit excuse that is impossible to happen and called it more probable.
you dont really want evidence , i mean if you really wanted it you just need to google it.
Whilst I agree that Hoshibo is going about this the wrong way, he touches an important point. You need to read your Hume: On Miracles, and then maybe you'll understand where he's coming from by posing all kinds of spurious natural explanations. The point Hume makes, in a nutshell, is that *any* natural explanation is more plausible than a supernatural one.
you need to diferentiate miracles that can be explained naturalistically, i.e. "demon" possessions as a psychological disorder, and events that cannot be explained naturalistically, i.e. how can near death expiriences see things that are several hundered meeters away from them or several flors above or below them while they themselfs are out of consciousness. There has been a study of over 4000 of these cases.
I cannot imagine any kind of naturalistic explanation for that.
I think that there is a time when we will need to expand our idea of " naturalistic world" from 3D + time to more dimensions. When physics has the need to explain effects its no problem to postulate 11 dimensions ( string theory) but its somehow a streach to say "there might be a soul" outside of known 4D spacetime.
I started to believe NDE's are real only when current naturalistic explanations failed. I wont say there might be one, but how do you explain out of body perception?
I don't. My Degrees are in Economics and Political Economy. I follow neuroscience, but the key word is follow. I don't lead. If there are indeed flaws in our understanding of consciousness, and I think you are being very presumptuous to say there are on the basis of patchy evidence, then I shall await keenly for world leading experts to publish papers on them in reputable journals.
As for string theory, it is not conjecture, but a way of forming models with predictive utility.
"there are on the basis of patchy evidence, then I shall await keenly for world leading experts to publish papers on them in reputable journals."
its not patchy evidence
a team of NDE researchers - physicists , psychologists, philosophers talked at the Unated Nations about this phenomena and said how on one of 3 universities they wanted to do research they were meet with resitance since cheef of the universitiy did not let them do the research becasue of his bias.
There has been a study on acupunture, when considering all of the data conclusion was that we must have another part except our physical body. The article was supposed to be published in a reputable journal , the journal wanted to ask confirmation from 5 nobelists that the conclusion of this article is true. They got the confirmation from 5 nobel winners. They still did not publish the article...
Try to see any philosphers of science, or read a book on history of science, scientists were also quite dogmatic in accepting new theories when those theories opposed the current paradigm.
As for string theory, yes its a theory that can explain alot about the universe, but it goes outside of our known material world into 11 dimensions. Why is it a big streach to postulate a few more dimensions in which we can place a part of us that could explain ouf of body perception?
Because dimensionality isn't just a handy concept you can throw around to hide your ghouls and ghosties in. String theory has predictive utility. It predicts the observed behaviour of particles in a way that can be falsified. It's a mathematical model that makes predictions. That's the appropriate use of extra dimensions. They're not conceptual things you can just hide your supernatural stuff in.
when string theory was first proposed we knew nothing about its predictional capacity or will it work at all, we made the boundaries of our universe broader to 11 dimensions for us to explain something.
when "soul" theory was first proposed we knew nothing about its predictional capacity or will it work at all,
we made the boundaries of our universe broader to make room for the soul for us to explain something
now tell me how is this supernatural any different then string theory
Mine had a logical explination whilst yours didn't even have an explination if you did not include a "soul".
You're simply not smart enough to even grasp what I am talking about so this "debate" is completely futile.
So... Thanks for wasting my time, only good thing about it is that you proved my first hypothesis about the intellectual differences between atheists and theists.
your had a logical explanation that was statistically impossible and based on theories you made up on the spot.
"only good thing about it is that you proved my first hypothesis about the intellectual differences between atheists and theists."
this is exactly what im talking about, if YOU dont find sometihng reasonable , then its not right. But if you make bullshit excuse then it is logical only because it seems to you. This is precious.
But let me be clear on what you actuall theory was:
Through electric signals from machines a blind person got information implemented into the memory of her brain (theory that has no scientific support, and was made up on the spot)
And it is coincidential that the memory inprint in her brain is the same as the events that were happening while the person was out of consciousness. And this is logical explanation?
You are more illogical then any theist i have met.
@niinja2 It's not probable, more so even completely unlikely but it is a fully logical explanation which can be tested and falsified. If you think that's not logical, then you sir are an idiot. But since I haven't seen any documentation of these things being verified my conclusion is brain damage or hallucination. If it actually was verified I have no way of knowing someone told them about what happend.
your logical conclusion should be "i dont know" especially if you did not evaluate the data, if you say you did not see the data and you make a conclusion about something it you are exactly like a theist that has wishfull thinking.
You say "soul" explanation is not logical only because you cannot grasp the posibility that there might be a soul and that dualism is true. This is your problem. I did not say it is ilogocal , i said it was irrational and unprobable and magical.
@niinja2 My conclusion is based upon the data that I have. Unlike you I do not make up data to complete my hypothesis, instead my conclusion is left at the most reasonable explination which comes to mind. It's made up because there is no document that verifies their stories or even verifies the autencity of the study.
@niinja2 My theory was based on the fact that the human brain operates using electrical impulses. It was a theory just as worthy as yours with just as much proof.
I wouldn't need a document, just something that can verify that it was made without any errors, such as that they were completly isolated from their surrounding during the time that they were out cold and until the time they told anyone they had "seen things". -Not too much to ask. Yet there is none.
"It was a theory just as worthy as yours with just as much proof."
what proof
what is amazing that you still promote your theory as something that is reasonable.
do we have proof that medical measuring equipment can also record data in the room and translate it into electrical impulses and send it through arms or whatever into the exact place into the brain where we store our visual memory
i feel like an idiot even typing this and you somehow think this is rational?
"such as that they were completly isolated from their surrounding during the time that they were out cold and until the time they told anyone they had "seen things". -Not too much to ask."
No , and you should certainly try to find it
"Yet there is none."
ANSWER THIS QUESTION
how do you know there is none? have you looked at the evidence for this?
because if you say that something does not exist or something is not true without looking at the evidence for it you are LYING.
Things dont cease to exist just because you were to lazy to check them out, you dont have to but then rational and intelectually HONNEST stance is I DONT KNOW. Not IT DOES NOT EXIST.
@niinja2 When did I accuse anyone of lying? I said they might as well be lying as far as I know, a testimony isn't proof as I have said earlier. You're so eager to believe that there is life after death that you have already made up your mind and will not see any other possibilities other than consciousness after death when there is a 100% logical, reasonable explanation to be found out.
"a testimony isn't proof as I have said earlier. "
false
study is not a testimony, making things up again
"when there is a 100% logical, reasonable explanation to be found out."
which is?
"BECAUSE THE SOUL IS AN INFALLABLE HYPOTHESIS! You can't prove it and I can't disprove it!"
is string theory infallable hypothesis ? is multiverse theory infalable hypothesis? can you prove them, no you cant, but scientists still ponder on them.
@niinja2 Oh my fuck, what would you call the patients stories? Not testimonies? -.-
I'm not a scientist, I don't know the answer.
Yes, they are. But there's where we differ. We look for ways to test the theories and do not conclude anything until then. I.e. we don't explain it by saying "GOD!".
"what would you call the patients stories? Not testimonies? -.-"
i mean how old are you? 12 ? You know if a patient says that he saw things that was happening far away from him , you can check if he is telling the truth or making things up if you go there and actually see if the thing he describes happened.
""such as that they were completly isolated from their surrounding during the time that they were out cold and until the time they told anyone they had "seen things". -Not too much to ask. Yet there is none."
yes there is, Pam Reynolds. Do you know see that your making conclusions without even bothering to check.
well im a physics student so i do know , they are also what you say INFALLABLE HHYPOTHESIS, at least for now.
"But there's where we differ. We look for ways to test the theories and do not conclude anything until then. I.e. we don't explain it by saying "GOD!"."
I didnt say god, but soul, but fair enough.
The data collected in those studies imply that homo sapiens has the ability to perceive the world while out of consciousness, OK?
@niinja2 YEEEEEEEES! Finally! He gets it! No I don't know that there is no such thing as a soul! BECAUSE THE SOUL IS AN INFALLABLE HYPOTHESIS! You can't prove it and I can't disprove it!
And yet again, god is an infallable hypothesis. Why would there be a god? I might aswell believe that there is a tiny spirit living in our rectums and when he becomes angry we need to poop. But I know how the human anatomy works so I DON'T believe that there is a tiny spirit in my rectum.
we could not prove atoms untill 100 years ago and some fucktards thought its not even worth thinking about them . Atoms were the best explanation for the structure of the world even before you could prove them.
Its quite logical and rational to believe there is a part of us that is not of mattery especially when you do have evidence for such a thing. Even if you cant prove it soul is still THE BEST EXPLANATION of a phenomena.
"Why would it be logical and rational!? Explain it please! Because I certainly have never seen a soul and I'm pretty sure you haven't either."
have you seen an atom, or a string from string theory?
why would it be irrational? we live in a world where majority of people believe that there exist the alternate reality. 80% of danish people are atheists, but 50% of danish believe there is something like a soul.
"Why would it be logical and rational!? Explain it please! Because I certainly have never seen a soul and I'm pretty sure you haven't either."
you have never seen or heard a measuring medical device record data from surroundings and implant memories into human brain, and yet you call it logical and rational. You double standard is obvious here.
soul is possible, but that is somehow ilogical explanation?
your explanation is impossible, but you call it logical....
@niinja2 The soul, as well as God, is an INFALLIBLE HYPOTHESIS because it can't be tested, therefore cannot be proven and a RATIONAL PERSON concludes that no more time should be wasted on the theory until a credible hypothesis is presented.
So if you don't see the difference in a RATIONAL HYPOTHESIS and an INFALLIBLE HYPOTHESIS I have wasted too much time on you.
You'll notice that folks like "TheismBeatsAtheism" never allow comments on their postings. Theists and religious folks, almost to a number, refuse to allow commenting. But atheists and agnostics who post to YouTube ALL allow comments. Why do you suppose this is?
While there are many miracles that God does to help with things like ministry and charity and such, I don't think anyone is saying that atheists can't give to charity. It would be more correct to say that it isn't a given trait of atheists to be concerned about anyone but themselves. In general, even the charity's backed by atheists have selfish motives. Another thing to consider is that when Christians help the poor, the positive effects tend to last for longer than when atheists help.
@QuelDroma366 Do you have any statistics to back up your assertions that "it isn't a given trait of atheists to be concerned about anyone but themselves," and "charities backed by atheists have selfish motives," and "when Christians help the poor, the positive effects tend to last for longer than when atheists help?" Please, tell us where we can find them, and what neutral statistician compiled them. Or are you making assumptions? (And you had the temerity to call me a liar.)
@Xenophile665 Where did I call you a liar? Anyway, I didn't use statistics to determine this. I have studied atheists, their views, and their effects throughout history for a few years now. When people of a certain worldview take control of a country, the true colors of their worldview show.The fact is that whenever atheists or practical atheists gain control of a country they become plainly evil. I can also find no evidence of good coming as a result of atheism's presence in the world.
@QuelDroma366 You stated, "I seriously doubt your claim of reading the Bible from cover to cover," in response to my telling that I had done so. That's the same as saying I'm a liar. And if you don't have statistics to back up your assertions, then your assertions are only your personal opinions, your assumptions, i.e., meaningless. And the fact is that whenever theists gain control of a country, they become plainly evil, too. Unless the country has a proper set of checks and balances.
@Xenophile665 alright, I'll give you that I questioned your honesty, but I do kind of have to check. After all, why should you think that lies are bad? I think they are because God said so, but what about you?
I partially agree with you about what happens when theists gain control of a country, but you made a rather large mistake. You are simply lumping every religion into the same category. As long as a country is run by Christian rules, it does just fine.
@QuelDroma366 Lies are bad because we should base our decisions on facts. Lies are not facts. I don't need an imaginary god to recognize what is right and wrong. "As long as a country is run by Christian rules, it does just fine." I'm certain that the persecuted Jews of the Inquisition would argue against that foolish statement. (Also, the slaves in the U.S. during the 17th and 18th centuries, and their descendants. Slavery and racism were loudly supported from the pulpit.)
@Xenophile665 lol So you don't need God to know right and wrong eh? If you decide what is moral and what isn't, then what you have decided ends with you. If you believe that murder is wrong, then I can assure you that many people feel that not murdering would be immoral. If you think it is good to murder, then there are a lot of people that would disagree with you there too. If morality goes no further than what you decide, then it really has no meaning. If God decides morality, it is universal.
@QuelDroma366 Precisely. Every person, in the final analysis, decides what is right and wrong for them. You, me, everyone.
"If you believe that murder is wrong, then I can assure you that many people feel that not murdering would be immoral." Yes, and it's up to us to change these people, or, if absolutely necessary, keep them from murdering others by imprisonment. "If god decides morality," he (or she) is far too recitent for humankind to make informed decisions concerning it.
@QuelDroma366 Also, I'm still awaiting your response to my first comment: Do you have any statistics to back up your assertions that "it isn't a given trait of atheists to be concerned about anyone but themselves," and "charities backed by atheists have selfish motives," and "when Christians help the poor, the positive effects tend to last for longer than when atheists help?" Please tell us where we can find them, and what neutral statistician compiled them.
@QuelDroma366 Let me ask you one simply question. If an atheist, goes through his/her entire life, doing mostly "good", in the eyes of rationality and partially religion. Lets take the Christian religion, as an example. Now, this atheist does not steal, does not kill etc, but his/her only "flaw" is that he/she does not accept Jesus as the Savior, or for that matter, believe in a God governing the universe. Would your God still condemn this individual? Most likely I'd say.
@Haseeebo This hypothetical person doesn't exist according to Christianity. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." In reality, we all fall far short of the perfection that God requires. Jesus repeatedly pointed out that good religious people aren't good enough. So how would an atheist make the cut?
@QuelDroma366 hold on a second. "...religious people aren't good enough, so how would an atheist make the cut"? You automatically rule out that religious people are better than Atheists, just based on that fact alone? Wow...thats shocking. What you've just said is no different than the White slave owners, who automatically ruled out black people as lesser, or Hitler and the Nazi's who automatically ruled out Jews and other undesirables.
You're content with your decision of being so prejudice?
@QuelDroma366 furthermore, you mention that "we all fall far short of the perfection that God requires"...well IF that is true, are you content with believing in, and worshiping a God who isn't "all merciful", and "benevolent"? Let alone being a liar, and a hypocrite.
Interesting you would believe in a God with so many contradictions. Once again I ask you, would God make so many mistakes? Would he leave so much upto personal interpretation and ambiguity? I think not.
@Haseeebo "What you've just said is no different than the White slave owners"
What I said is completely different. My point was that if a person that believes in God and is trying to follow the rules isn't good enough, then how could someone else make the cut when they insult God on a regular basis and care nothing for his laws.
As to your other point, you make claims that God has made mistakes, that he is imperfect and a liar. Those are pretty severe accusations. Can you back up these claims?
@QuelDroma366 You're stil claiming God's existence as FACT. If you had an ounce of rationality in you, you would realize that NO ONE KNOWS if God exists. We all simply believe or disbelieve, based on evidence of lack thereof.
As for my "accusations"...I can easily back up he claims.
Epicurus Trilema:
1.if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
2.if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
3.if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil
@Haseeebo You've just oversimplified the situation. God is perfectly able to prevent evil and he often does. At the same time, he often allows evil as well. He does this, because he has given us free will and preventing us from ever doing evil would take away that free will. Another reason that he allows evil is to let us see what happens when we don't follow God and his laws.
@QuelDroma366 Soo God made us with free will, but also made us imperfect, and then punishes for being imperfect unless we say we're sorry that he created us imperfect...sounds kind of dickish if you ask me. And it's not really free will if he threatens us if we don't follow him. It's just plain old will with consequences. Nonetheless, God is not very nice for creating us imperfect, then punishing us for seeing no evidence for him at all in the Universe
@QuelDroma366 Going with the Monotheistic traditions (Semetic), God created Adam and Eve KNOWING they were going to eat the apple. God created the Devil (need I say more?). Isaiah 45:7
God killed children for making fun of Elisha's bald head for cryin out loud 2 Kg.2:23-24
Lets see the commandments.
Thou shall not commit adultery - God impregnates Mary while she is married to Joseph
Thou shall not murder...oh yeah we've been through that already.
@Haseeebo "God created the Devil (need I say more?)"
God created the devil with free will. The devil chose to be bad
"God killed children for making fun of Elisha's bald head"
Those children were in their twenties, which is plenty old enough to know better. Elisha was God's prophet and those men were being disrespectful beyond simply saying "hey bald man!"
"God impregnates Mary while she is married to Joseph"
God didn't have sex with Mary. Plus they were engaged, not married.
@QuelDroma366 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me Deuteronomy 5:9
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
@QuelDroma366 LOL I can't believe you asked why lies are bad. Ever heard of rationality? Morals dictated by rationality, rather than divine guidance? I think you're making an even larger mistake by stating Christian rule as completely fine. Seems like discrimination of other ethnicities. Another "wonder" of Religion. Any Religion based on missionizing is in breach of basic human rights. (Freedom of Religion).
Unless you don't believe those rights are to be granted...do you?
@Haseeebo I'm not really sure what rights you're referring to, but I don't have a problem with people sending out missionaries, every religion has the right to peacefully persuade others.
Concerning lies, you don't really have a reason for rationality or logic to exist if you believe that there is no god. Logic must be universal or else we would all have different logic and it would mean nothing, however if we say it is independent of our minds, then where did it come from?
@QuelDroma366 Logic is not universal. And who's to say it is independent of our minds? Logic, like everything else in the world, changes from time to time. From location to location. What may have been logical 1000 years ago, would be preposterous today. To say I have no reason for rationality or logic simply becaue I don't believe in God, is quite ignorant.
Oh and there's a difference between "peacefull persuasion", and historical accounts of missionaries. For all monotheistic religions.
@QuelDroma366 As for doubting whether Xenophile665 read the bible from cover to cover...well assuming he is an atheist, or agnostic, I think it might interest you to read up on a recent survey conducted by Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and Agnostics seemed to come on top as the most knowledgable, when it comes to Religion.
Interesting...isn't it? And quite obvious if you ask me. Not bragging, simply rationalizing why it is that "non-believers" came out on top.
@Haseeebo As to this survey you mention, I don't trust the person doing the survey, it's too easy to make a bad survey or misrepresent results for this to be convincing evidence of anything. Also, even if we do assume that the survey is correct, it still doesn't address the real topic at he root of this discussion: does God exist? I have reasoned through this logically and listened to what atheists had to say for years, but I can't find a single convincing argument against him.
@QuelDroma366 Thats fine as spirituality is for the individual, as I mentioned. Quite frankly I find it impossible to even attempt to disprove something that hasnt been proved to begin with, or which has shown evidence supporting its existence. It is upto those making the claims to prove Gods existence. Not the other way around. Besides that, there are numerous points of evidence against the stories of most religious scripture. Would God make such mistakes?
If I was President, I would do away with Democracy. Fuck that bullshit. If you let the popular vote of a community run a local business rather the person that is right for the job it would fail. I know what's right to do. I'd start with the tax law, and cut it from 50,000 pages to about a 1000, if that. Fix all them stupid loopholes. Basically everyone pitches in the same amount all round, in a nutshell.
@yourmomswallowsmycum What you are suggesting is a direction that atheists tend to go. This direction sometimes takes form as communism and sometimes as socialism. Socialism gave birth to the Nazi's and communism, Russia. As you look through history you'll see that this is a plan for failure. Capitalism (which is the system the U.S. runs on) is a Christian idea and it is a contributing factor to the fact that we are the dominant world power.
@QuelDroma366 "Capitalism is a Christian idea?" Sorry, you can't back that up with the bible. In fact, Communism had its beginnings, not from atheists, but from primitive Christians (read Acts 2:44-45). Atheistic Nazi Germany? No, Hitler was Catholic. His SS soldiers' belt buckles were all inscribed, "Gott mit uns." That's German for "God (is) with us." Don't you think it's time you get into some genuine historical research, instead of echoing what you hear from pulpits?
I see your point - but you can't very well pwn theists by saying that they tend to confuse atheism with socialism (though you are ofc right in this) when you quite clearly confuse socialism and what happened in the USSR. That wasn't even communism. Other than that, good point sir. Ta-ta.
I agree With Yeahbuddy2 down there, If social Darwinism is allowed, and you have humanistic natural selection, your saying that only certain people should be allowed to live. Jesus Loves everyone the same, no matter who you are- In that sense, I would rather follow a shameless, sinless God who became a man and Died for my Sins than Richard Dawkins.
@Evers70HWT, social Darwinism (aka, eugenics) is not a part of Darwin's original theory of evolution by natural selection. It is artificial (i.e., human decisions about who procreates and who doesn't).
Also, if Jesus "loves everyone the same," he would give them each the exact same chances in life. Then, either all would go to his Heaven, or be cast down to an everlasting Hell. I too would prefer to follow a shameless, sinless god. Read the bible from cover to cover -- very shameful, IMP.
@Xenophile665 I seriously doubt your claim of reading the Bible from cover to cover. Even if you did though, you likely read it with little teaching regarding the meaning of passages and attempted to see as many flaws in it as you could.
When you do this, you begin reading it, insisting that it is inconsistent and made up. You don't try to understand things that don't make sense to you, it's just another tally mark on the board.
Search for God with an honest heart and you will find him.
@QuelDroma366 The first 4 times I read it was when I was a child/teenager and Baptist. Then I read it twice when I was a young adult and had no specific denomination. Then I read it 4 more times when I was a member of the LDS church. I have read it one more time since I left the LDS and became an agnostic atheist. (Also Quran and others)
I read with honest intentions. How can you read dishonestly? ... ...
@QuelDroma366 BTW, I asked questions of ministers, bishops and other believers, when I was confused about things I read. Most of the times I read the bible, I was not doing it with the intent of "seeing as many flaws in it as I could," I read it to find out what it said.... ... ... I suggest you forgo trying to become a mind reader, and stick to your day job.
@Xenophile665 Alright, so I pegged you wrong, thanks for the background info. But given what you've said I kind of have to ask: what made you decide to become an agnostic atheist?
@QuelDroma366 I came to the conclusion that there is no god, that the concept is a construct of human imagination. If the bible were reliable, christians would be performing miracles hourly. They don't. God is imaginary.
@QuelDroma366 Rather, I should say that I came to the conclusion that there was no available evidence that there is a god, and the concept of an all-powerful creator/deity is, in all likelihood, a construct of human imagination.
@QuelDroma366 Miracles do not happen every day, or, for that matter, any day. A miracle is an occurrence that could only happen through so-called "divine intervention," like regrowing arms and legs for amputees. This never happens. The alleged words of Jesus in John 14:12 and Mark 16:17 are the basis for my "assumption."
@Evers70HWT I have to tear this apart a bit. For one, evolution does not tell people "how" to live. Second, Jesus clearly does not love everyone the same. He and God claim to be one and the same (more than once), and God clearly shows hatred and disdain for many of his creations thus =/= love. Not only that but he lays out what is and isn't a sin then disobey's his own first commandment which he calls a sin time and time again, how is that sinless?
A complacent mind lumps all belief systems together under the title of "religion". This is your fundamental error. You must reason through the differences between the gods and their followers. Only then will your research be thorough and worthy of your claims.
First try reading the Bible and compare it with the Koran. The differences are astounding. Its like comparing a elephant to an onion . Of course, evolutionists are used to doing ridiculous things like that.
So, why do we need a justice system? There is no moralilty among the beasts - they live by pure instinct. Why are we different? Why do only men have beards and not women? Why are there still comets if our universe is 13 billion years old (oort cloud is unobservable and taken by faith alone)? Why are there male and female? Why do some creatures remain the same throughout the fossil record? Why are you offended by God?
I love how wordy atheists get. Especially in their responses to Christians. It's as if in order to convince yourself that you are right, you have to blather on for multiple posts. Have a nice day!
Then we must both lack points to our arguments, as you are now attacking my style.
And my point was in my original post, if one has the wit to see it. I never get straight-forward answers from atheists. They always beat around the bush, blather on, and say so much that their point is lost. So, to keep things as laconic as possible: Say what you mean!
THE ONLY THING THAT ATHEIST BELIEVE IS WHAT THEY SEE WITH THERE OWN EYE'S HOW IRONIC IS THAT ? THAT BASE THERE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY SEE OF THE WORLD AND THE UNIVERSE TO THERE OWN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND NOT THE SPIRITIUAL WORLD OF WHAT THEY DONT SEE ? THAT'S THERE PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST BUT HE DOES IT EXIST ONLY TO THOSE WHO SEEK TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD IN BIBLE. SEEK AND YOU SHOULD FIND KNOCK AND IT WILL BE OPEN SEE THINGS IN THE SPIRIT NOT THE PHYSICAL WORLD
maxismax100 3 months ago
None of your points are in any way a direct infliction on religion in general. In fact, you're even beginning to make Atheism sound like a religion of its own.
None of those conflicts had anything to do with the religions themselves, but with dumbasses misinterpreting their own belief system and becoming "extremists", That's why they're called "extremists"...
Plus, you sound like somebody from Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
MattHughes2011 11 months ago
This is a response video, so it's true that the points made are tangential to the more general question of whether religion is a good/true thing. I address that in other videos.
As to my accent, well, that's an accident of birth I'm afraid!
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
You sound like a dumbass. You're really making the Atheists look bad....
MattHughes2011 11 months ago
If that's directed at me, maybe you'd care to substantiate your comment?
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
nemojte se svadati,,,širite mir,,,ljubav,,,poštivanje,,,nemoj te se vrijedati,,,,
harikenful 11 months ago
@harikenful
haha i loled
niinja2 11 months ago
i dont mind people being sceptical about it, especially if they were atheists, it goes against their current understanding of the universe.
But i do mind that people who call themslelfs critical and rational thinkers will say stuff like "there is no evidence for a soul" withouth actually looking at the evidence, and if they do look at the evidence they will think of "magic" that would explain the phenomena and say "God did" it, oh sorry i meant "science explained it."
niinja2 11 months ago
Blind people that never dreamed objects describe what is happening around them while they are out. Lady with blood sucked out of her brain and cooled down to 15 celsius is under operation and she replicates the discussion of a doctor and describes the dril in her head and the box the dril was placed.
Lady has a car crash , exists her body and sees a man comming from another car and turning the lights in her car off.
niinja2 11 months ago
The question to me is does the worldview allow for the evils we see done in its name. A Christian who murders goes against the teachings of Jesus. If atheism is true, life began to exist and developed through evolution. In this case the traits & beliefs that get passed provide a survival value. How in an evolutionary framework can morality be anything but what has best assisted survival? We were stronger than the American Indians, killed them and took their stuff. What makes this wrong?
robertvroom 1 year ago
I'm an atheist, and I base my morality on reciprocal ethics and consequentialism, using science and reason to better understand both the likely effects of my actions and the consequences of those effects on the experience of individuals.
Morality is best viewed as descriptive, not prescriptive, god saying moral truths doesn't make them any truer than me saying them just because he's more powerful than me. If you try and bridge the fact value gap, you'll have problems.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm my questions for you are... Is the only reason that it is actually evil to butcher babies that it goes against reciprocal ethics or is the butchering of babies actually, objectively wrong? To humans have value in and of themselves or are we just animals that developed different survival mechanisms, but have no more value objectively than a rat? If two societies differ in ideals (USA vs. Nazi Germany for instance), how do you determine who is right?
robertvroom 1 year ago
@robertvroom Can either be right? Was our morality only better than theirs because we won the war and said that ours was better?
robertvroom 1 year ago
atheists can achieve moral level of any theist or a religious person
but do they?
studies have shown that religious americans are 50% to several times more charitable with their time, money and blood.
niinja2 1 year ago
Look at the religious makeup of prison populations and tell me that's true.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
Yes it is true, the study by Arthur C. Brooks has shown it , they have also shown that religious americans spend more time with their families and that evangelical Christians are generally the happiest people in America.
As for prison make up, are you telling me that most of believers in prisons are regular church goers?
Yeah because going to church makes you a gangsta.
niinja2 1 year ago
I am, and you may look it up for yourself :)
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@niinja2 And studies shows that unhappy and sceptical people are in most cases more intelligent than happy and optimistic people. I honestly think that there is a strong connection between beliefs and intelligence.
hoshibo 1 year ago
@hoshibo there has been some kind of a general study that has shown that atheists are in general 5% more inteligent then theists. Although i would ascribe this result to education since if you are uneducated you are probably going to be a theist, it is the more default position with children.
"strong connection between beliefs and intelligence."
Show me a person taht does not think that. The fact that you cannot understand why someone thinks what he does , does not mean he is stupid.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 The reason why I think theist are less intelligent is because they refuse to take in any new information. They do not think for themselves when it comes to cause and effect because to them the cause is always God and they leave it at that.
hoshibo 1 year ago
@hoshibo
People in general refuse to take information not because of lack of inteligence but because of fear, emotional investment in a particular idea. Its hard to take new information if it contradicts or attacks what you already believe.
Let me show you.
There is evidence for Gods existence, people who had near death expiriences saw things in this world while they were out of consciousness, People who were blind from birth saw colors and objects. This is proof of a soul.
niinja2 1 year ago
Why is that proof of a soul?
People hallucinate all kinds of stuff, including the blind, it's only proof that they've hallucinated, not proof that consciousness is somehow divorced from the physical matter of the brain.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
People saw things they were happening several hundred meters away from them and several floors above or below them , while they were unconscious.
those are not hallucinations.
niinja2 11 months ago
And your evidence for this is what? Eyewitness testimony? I think if we're evaluating a claim as big as the existence of an extra-corpereal soul I'm entitled to ask for peer reviewed evidence.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
type NDE in google or your tube, bbc made a documentary about it but you have other info except that.
niinja2 11 months ago
Peer reviewed evidence is all that's acceptable I'm afraid. I'm not in the business of basing my views on documentaries or websites, I like papers published in reputable journals. Through my university I can access pretty much any journals, so please, link me.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
Well they talked about this in the unated nations i think there are studies somehwhere, type PMH atwatter.
well i think you know what i mean now, this information is somehow unacceptable even though you cannot explain how the blind lady saw collors and objects. She was blind from birth , she does not hallucinate objects because she never saw them. And this is my point, we somehow reject or place a higher standard of criticism on things we dont like. Q.E.D.
niinja2 11 months ago
Nah ah, I have the same standards for everything. For mundane claims like 'This guy died' or 'This thing happened' I'll rely on decent news agencies. For big claims like 'Actually, the universe is built like THIS' you surely need to look at the evidence yourself?
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
what do you think about sam harisses theories on muslim terrorists? or hitchens ideas about role of religion in war in ex yugoslavia
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2
I think they're both a little simplistic and polemical. Islamic terrorism is a very complex phenomenon, Islam is only one of several enabling factors. Certainly religion plays a large role in the Yugoslavian conflict as one of the social institutions that re-inforces a mentality of separation and 'otherness' between nations/tribes/groups. Religious identities tend to be exclusive unless tempered with more modern moral ideas.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Just checking, you do seem like a type that does not believe anything, but i have met to many atheists that will believe anything if they really want to. Its generally the same with Christians.
niinja2 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
il try to find actual studies
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 And for whom do you think it's harder to accept an idea? -The believer or the logical atheist? Let's say a new theory about the creation of our universe is revealed, do you think that the theist is gonna spend one second reflecting over that? I bet he's just going to ignore it and keep believing in magic.
In what way would any of that be evidence?
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
the same thing an atheist will do to the evidence of dualism
niinja2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 There IS NO evidence for dualism.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@niinja2 Evidence of dualism? Atheists are loyal to reason, not to their lack of belief. So if evidence of dualism actually did exist we wouldn't have atheists.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo, I lol'd, circular argument is circular
You certainly speak for both of us though...
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@hoshibo
many atheists i speak to are not loyal to reason, but to what they intuitions think is reasonable. In short , if they dont think its reasonable , they reject it even though it might be true. Evidence of dualism does exist but people often reject it without even looking at the evidence, they repeat "there is no evidence " so much that they started to believe it.
Type "nde dutch study" into google
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 That still isn't evidence, it's a study! The logical answer to their experiences isn't that their souls left their bodies but rather brain damage. -- Conclusion was based on my own experiences within the realm of reality. What you're trying to prove is what we call an infallible hypothesis, it can't be proven because it can't tested. -- Same thing is with god.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"it's a study! The logical answer to their experiences isn't that their souls left their bodies but rather brain damage."
how can brain damage cause people to see things happening in real time in the real world while they are out of consciousness , things that happen several floors above or below then, or several hundred meeter away from them?
niinja2 11 months ago
That ain't what the study says now is it. Chapter and verse if you please.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
quote from that article
"Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience."
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 They wouldn't remember if they did since memories are stored in our brain and the brain was, as you know, unconscious.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
well obviously they did remember it enough so they can describe it.... this shows that our conscience is not only the brain
niinja2 11 months ago
Chapter and verse? I can't find anywhere in the article that says how they remembered things that actually happened.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
im sorry , but how do you think they reported them? obviously from their memory after they have "woken up"...
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 No it doesn't. They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory. -- Which is more likely but still can't be proven.
Another probable cause is that someone may have told them, which they either lied about or just forgot they were told and thought that it was their own experience due to brain damage. Or maybe the study is done by religious fanatics trying to recruit members.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory"
and you have scientific evidence that this is even possible , let alone more likely? Or you just trying to "explain" it away.
let me quote you: continued...
niinja2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@niinja2 "They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory. -- Which is more likely but STILL CAN'T BE PROVEN." Is what I said, got it now?
Anyways... It's not an infallible hypothesis since it can be tested if the human memory can be affected by electrical signals, so yeah it's a hell of a lot more likely. Yours on the other hand IS an infallible hypothesis.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"And for whom do you think it's harder to accept an idea? -The believer or the "logical" atheist? Let's say a new theory about the dualism of our universe is revealed, do you think that the atheist is gonna spend one second reflecting over that? I bet he's just going to ignore it and keep believing in magic."
So do you recognize yourself in this?
And theories which explain away NDE you presented are borderline magic
Nde does not have to be true, but you acted as any theist about them
niinja2 11 months ago
So no, I don't recognize myself.
Their theory can't be tested, therefore it has 0 credibility. Do you understand?
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
my mission is not to prove to you that soul exists because i know i cannot do that, my mission was to show how will you react to such info, and what your doing now is all the proof i need that atheists are also irational human beings when it comes to defending their wievs about life. You will make up things if it does not fit you.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 What? Now you're just proving that theists are retarded. Don't know why my first response hasn't come up yet but I'll write it again.
First off, I said "They may just as well have gotten electrical signals through the equipment into her brain making imprints in her memory. -- Which is more likely but still CAN'T BE PROVEN.". Although it could be proven that electrical signals can affect the human memory. Therefore, a RATIONAL HYPOTHESIS.
More to come...
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
so you say, a blind person through electical impulses by devices that are not designed to do such a thing , got implemented memories that are coincidentally the same as if the same person saw them with her own eyes.and this is a rational hypothesis....
this is highly improbable to say that it is impossible.
NDE's show that we have part of us that can percieve things while our body is out of consciousness, this can be tested and proven as it was... so its not infallible hypothesis.
niinja2 11 months ago
Struggling to see the bit of the paper which said that people had verifiable experiences of things that actually happened, and they couldn't have known about when they were out.
I remember a study where Zener cards were placed on top of high surfaces in critical cardiology care wards to see if patients who experienced out of body phenomena could see them. They couldn't, wish I remembered where I saw that...
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
type pam anderson or pam something and add "nde" into you tube you will get a testimony of a lady that had blood sucked out of her brain and she was able to describe the drill they used to drill her head.
i also heard that doctors place some kind of signs after the surgery starts which you should be able to see if your out of body and nobody reported such a sign. Are you saying they could not see or they did not see these cards, what more do you know about this?
niinja2 11 months ago
Nothing I'm afraid, may not have even been a proper study (as in, in a reputable journal).
Look, all the NDE stuff is very interesting from a neuroscience standpoint, but I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything supernatural. It's a simple principle, just because we can't see a natural explanation for something doesn't mean it must be supernatural. Imagine if we always did that in science! It'd be a disaster.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@niinja2 The evidence of it happening are as many as there is evidence for their OBE. So you say THAT'S impossible but that their soul leaving their body and having a look around IS POSSIBLE?
IT WASN'T PROVEN!!! SHOW ME THE PROOF!
Here's you proving something... You say "I can fly!", I say "Prove it!" and you say "I just did by saying it to you.". It doesn't work that way. You can't get proof out of someone elses experience, all you can get is someones testimony which isn't enough.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
who said obe is impossible, but how do you know that obe isnt when soul leaves your body.
yes it was proven, people saw things they could not see.
i showed you the study , not a testimony , which said blind people saw things while they were uncinsciousness, you made up a bullshit excuse that is impossible to happen and called it more probable.
you dont really want evidence , i mean if you really wanted it you just need to google it.
I will make a movie about you and irationality.
niinja2 11 months ago
Whilst I agree that Hoshibo is going about this the wrong way, he touches an important point. You need to read your Hume: On Miracles, and then maybe you'll understand where he's coming from by posing all kinds of spurious natural explanations. The point Hume makes, in a nutshell, is that *any* natural explanation is more plausible than a supernatural one.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
you need to diferentiate miracles that can be explained naturalistically, i.e. "demon" possessions as a psychological disorder, and events that cannot be explained naturalistically, i.e. how can near death expiriences see things that are several hundered meeters away from them or several flors above or below them while they themselfs are out of consciousness. There has been a study of over 4000 of these cases.
I cannot imagine any kind of naturalistic explanation for that.
niinja2 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
I think that there is a time when we will need to expand our idea of " naturalistic world" from 3D + time to more dimensions. When physics has the need to explain effects its no problem to postulate 11 dimensions ( string theory) but its somehow a streach to say "there might be a soul" outside of known 4D spacetime.
I started to believe NDE's are real only when current naturalistic explanations failed. I wont say there might be one, but how do you explain out of body perception?
niinja2 11 months ago
I don't. My Degrees are in Economics and Political Economy. I follow neuroscience, but the key word is follow. I don't lead. If there are indeed flaws in our understanding of consciousness, and I think you are being very presumptuous to say there are on the basis of patchy evidence, then I shall await keenly for world leading experts to publish papers on them in reputable journals.
As for string theory, it is not conjecture, but a way of forming models with predictive utility.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
"there are on the basis of patchy evidence, then I shall await keenly for world leading experts to publish papers on them in reputable journals."
its not patchy evidence
a team of NDE researchers - physicists , psychologists, philosophers talked at the Unated Nations about this phenomena and said how on one of 3 universities they wanted to do research they were meet with resitance since cheef of the universitiy did not let them do the research becasue of his bias.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 evidence for this claim?
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
i heard it from my history of science teacher dunno, wher it is sorry
niinja2 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
There has been a study on acupunture, when considering all of the data conclusion was that we must have another part except our physical body. The article was supposed to be published in a reputable journal , the journal wanted to ask confirmation from 5 nobelists that the conclusion of this article is true. They got the confirmation from 5 nobel winners. They still did not publish the article...
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 evidence for the acupuncture stuff?
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JmkLcAeJsm
"evidence for the acupuncture stuff?"
i heard it from my philosophy and history of science teacher, cant link the study sorry dunno where it is.
i really fail to see why is it wrong to strech limits of known reality when it comes to "souls" but when it comes to physics its ok?
niinja2 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
Try to see any philosphers of science, or read a book on history of science, scientists were also quite dogmatic in accepting new theories when those theories opposed the current paradigm.
As for string theory, yes its a theory that can explain alot about the universe, but it goes outside of our known material world into 11 dimensions. Why is it a big streach to postulate a few more dimensions in which we can place a part of us that could explain ouf of body perception?
niinja2 11 months ago
Because dimensionality isn't just a handy concept you can throw around to hide your ghouls and ghosties in. String theory has predictive utility. It predicts the observed behaviour of particles in a way that can be falsified. It's a mathematical model that makes predictions. That's the appropriate use of extra dimensions. They're not conceptual things you can just hide your supernatural stuff in.
JmkLcAeJsm 11 months ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
when string theory was first proposed we knew nothing about its predictional capacity or will it work at all, we made the boundaries of our universe broader to 11 dimensions for us to explain something.
when "soul" theory was first proposed we knew nothing about its predictional capacity or will it work at all,
we made the boundaries of our universe broader to make room for the soul for us to explain something
now tell me how is this supernatural any different then string theory
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 OH MY FUCK! You can't be serious...
Mine had a logical explination whilst yours didn't even have an explination if you did not include a "soul".
You're simply not smart enough to even grasp what I am talking about so this "debate" is completely futile.
So... Thanks for wasting my time, only good thing about it is that you proved my first hypothesis about the intellectual differences between atheists and theists.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"Mine had a logical explination"
lol
your had a logical explanation that was statistically impossible and based on theories you made up on the spot.
"only good thing about it is that you proved my first hypothesis about the intellectual differences between atheists and theists."
this is exactly what im talking about, if YOU dont find sometihng reasonable , then its not right. But if you make bullshit excuse then it is logical only because it seems to you. This is precious.
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
But let me be clear on what you actuall theory was:
Through electric signals from machines a blind person got information implemented into the memory of her brain (theory that has no scientific support, and was made up on the spot)
And it is coincidential that the memory inprint in her brain is the same as the events that were happening while the person was out of consciousness. And this is logical explanation?
You are more illogical then any theist i have met.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 It's not probable, more so even completely unlikely but it is a fully logical explanation which can be tested and falsified. If you think that's not logical, then you sir are an idiot. But since I haven't seen any documentation of these things being verified my conclusion is brain damage or hallucination. If it actually was verified I have no way of knowing someone told them about what happend.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
your logical conclusion should be "i dont know" especially if you did not evaluate the data, if you say you did not see the data and you make a conclusion about something it you are exactly like a theist that has wishfull thinking.
You say "soul" explanation is not logical only because you cannot grasp the posibility that there might be a soul and that dualism is true. This is your problem. I did not say it is ilogocal , i said it was irrational and unprobable and magical.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 My conclusion is based upon the data that I have. Unlike you I do not make up data to complete my hypothesis, instead my conclusion is left at the most reasonable explination which comes to mind. It's made up because there is no document that verifies their stories or even verifies the autencity of the study.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"Unlike you I do not make up data to complete my hypothesis"
false
i did not make up data i made a conclusion, you made up the whole theory based on nothing.
"It's made up because there is no document that verifies their stories or even verifies the autencity of the study."
false
since when do you need a document that verifies the authenticity of the study?
you just made this up and made a conclusion about the study without researching it - textbook irrationality man.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 My theory was based on the fact that the human brain operates using electrical impulses. It was a theory just as worthy as yours with just as much proof.
I wouldn't need a document, just something that can verify that it was made without any errors, such as that they were completly isolated from their surrounding during the time that they were out cold and until the time they told anyone they had "seen things". -Not too much to ask. Yet there is none.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"It was a theory just as worthy as yours with just as much proof."
what proof
what is amazing that you still promote your theory as something that is reasonable.
do we have proof that medical measuring equipment can also record data in the room and translate it into electrical impulses and send it through arms or whatever into the exact place into the brain where we store our visual memory
i feel like an idiot even typing this and you somehow think this is rational?
GIVE ME A BRAKE
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"such as that they were completly isolated from their surrounding during the time that they were out cold and until the time they told anyone they had "seen things". -Not too much to ask."
No , and you should certainly try to find it
"Yet there is none."
ANSWER THIS QUESTION
how do you know there is none? have you looked at the evidence for this?
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED!? SERIOUSLY!?
WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I LOOK FOR EVIDENCE WHEN YOUR TRYING TO PROVE IT TO ME WITH A STUDY AND CALLING IT PROOF!?
You feel like an idiot because YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT. Have a nice life you retarded fuck. -.-
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I LOOK FOR EVIDENCE "
because if you say that something does not exist or something is not true without looking at the evidence for it you are LYING.
Things dont cease to exist just because you were to lazy to check them out, you dont have to but then rational and intelectually HONNEST stance is I DONT KNOW. Not IT DOES NOT EXIST.
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"You feel like an idiot because YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT."
No i feel like an idiot because im trying to explain something to an idiot.
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
so your saying they lied?
you have a way of knowing and researching this but you will not do it so you can keep believing what you want.
critical thinker my ass.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 When did I accuse anyone of lying? I said they might as well be lying as far as I know, a testimony isn't proof as I have said earlier. You're so eager to believe that there is life after death that you have already made up your mind and will not see any other possibilities other than consciousness after death when there is a 100% logical, reasonable explanation to be found out.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"a testimony isn't proof as I have said earlier. "
false
study is not a testimony, making things up again
"when there is a 100% logical, reasonable explanation to be found out."
which is?
"BECAUSE THE SOUL IS AN INFALLABLE HYPOTHESIS! You can't prove it and I can't disprove it!"
is string theory infallable hypothesis ? is multiverse theory infalable hypothesis? can you prove them, no you cant, but scientists still ponder on them.
so you fail at that one to.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 Oh my fuck, what would you call the patients stories? Not testimonies? -.-
I'm not a scientist, I don't know the answer.
Yes, they are. But there's where we differ. We look for ways to test the theories and do not conclude anything until then. I.e. we don't explain it by saying "GOD!".
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"what would you call the patients stories? Not testimonies? -.-"
i mean how old are you? 12 ? You know if a patient says that he saw things that was happening far away from him , you can check if he is telling the truth or making things up if you go there and actually see if the thing he describes happened.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 You can't be for real!? Are you serious? You don't have a clue, do you?
hoshibo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hoshibo
""such as that they were completly isolated from their surrounding during the time that they were out cold and until the time they told anyone they had "seen things". -Not too much to ask. Yet there is none."
yes there is, Pam Reynolds. Do you know see that your making conclusions without even bothering to check.
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
how can you say there is no evidence when you have not even tried to find it?
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"I'm not a scientist, I don't know the answer."
well im a physics student so i do know , they are also what you say INFALLABLE HHYPOTHESIS, at least for now.
"But there's where we differ. We look for ways to test the theories and do not conclude anything until then. I.e. we don't explain it by saying "GOD!"."
I didnt say god, but soul, but fair enough.
The data collected in those studies imply that homo sapiens has the ability to perceive the world while out of consciousness, OK?
niinja2 11 months ago
@hoshibo
and to postutalte that there is a soul is ilogical? only if you know that there isnt such a thing, which you dont.
lack of belief my ass, your a die hard "I KNOW THERE IS NO GOD " atheist
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 YEEEEEEEES! Finally! He gets it! No I don't know that there is no such thing as a soul! BECAUSE THE SOUL IS AN INFALLABLE HYPOTHESIS! You can't prove it and I can't disprove it!
And yet again, god is an infallable hypothesis. Why would there be a god? I might aswell believe that there is a tiny spirit living in our rectums and when he becomes angry we need to poop. But I know how the human anatomy works so I DON'T believe that there is a tiny spirit in my rectum.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
we could not prove atoms untill 100 years ago and some fucktards thought its not even worth thinking about them . Atoms were the best explanation for the structure of the world even before you could prove them.
Its quite logical and rational to believe there is a part of us that is not of mattery especially when you do have evidence for such a thing. Even if you cant prove it soul is still THE BEST EXPLANATION of a phenomena.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 Why would it be logical and rational!? Explain it please! Because I certainly have never seen a soul and I'm pretty sure you haven't either.
The best explanation is saved until there is some proof, the soul is a theory which can't be proven, simple as that.
hoshibo 11 months ago
@hoshibo
"Why would it be logical and rational!? Explain it please! Because I certainly have never seen a soul and I'm pretty sure you haven't either."
have you seen an atom, or a string from string theory?
why would it be irrational? we live in a world where majority of people believe that there exist the alternate reality. 80% of danish people are atheists, but 50% of danish believe there is something like a soul.
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2
"Why would it be logical and rational!? Explain it please! Because I certainly have never seen a soul and I'm pretty sure you haven't either."
you have never seen or heard a measuring medical device record data from surroundings and implant memories into human brain, and yet you call it logical and rational. You double standard is obvious here.
soul is possible, but that is somehow ilogical explanation?
your explanation is impossible, but you call it logical....
mega fail
niinja2 11 months ago
@niinja2 The soul, as well as God, is an INFALLIBLE HYPOTHESIS because it can't be tested, therefore cannot be proven and a RATIONAL PERSON concludes that no more time should be wasted on the theory until a credible hypothesis is presented.
So if you don't see the difference in a RATIONAL HYPOTHESIS and an INFALLIBLE HYPOTHESIS I have wasted too much time on you.
hoshibo 11 months ago
the balkan conflict?
the northern ireland troubles?
the only persistent factor is religion?
you watch your god mr hitchens to much
btw i am from Croatia
i dunno why i watch this bullshit
niinja2 1 year ago
You'll notice that folks like "TheismBeatsAtheism" never allow comments on their postings. Theists and religious folks, almost to a number, refuse to allow commenting. But atheists and agnostics who post to YouTube ALL allow comments. Why do you suppose this is?
GodlessAndHappy1 1 year ago
While there are many miracles that God does to help with things like ministry and charity and such, I don't think anyone is saying that atheists can't give to charity. It would be more correct to say that it isn't a given trait of atheists to be concerned about anyone but themselves. In general, even the charity's backed by atheists have selfish motives. Another thing to consider is that when Christians help the poor, the positive effects tend to last for longer than when atheists help.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Do you have any statistics to back up your assertions that "it isn't a given trait of atheists to be concerned about anyone but themselves," and "charities backed by atheists have selfish motives," and "when Christians help the poor, the positive effects tend to last for longer than when atheists help?" Please, tell us where we can find them, and what neutral statistician compiled them. Or are you making assumptions? (And you had the temerity to call me a liar.)
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 Where did I call you a liar? Anyway, I didn't use statistics to determine this. I have studied atheists, their views, and their effects throughout history for a few years now. When people of a certain worldview take control of a country, the true colors of their worldview show.The fact is that whenever atheists or practical atheists gain control of a country they become plainly evil. I can also find no evidence of good coming as a result of atheism's presence in the world.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 You stated, "I seriously doubt your claim of reading the Bible from cover to cover," in response to my telling that I had done so. That's the same as saying I'm a liar. And if you don't have statistics to back up your assertions, then your assertions are only your personal opinions, your assumptions, i.e., meaningless. And the fact is that whenever theists gain control of a country, they become plainly evil, too. Unless the country has a proper set of checks and balances.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 alright, I'll give you that I questioned your honesty, but I do kind of have to check. After all, why should you think that lies are bad? I think they are because God said so, but what about you?
I partially agree with you about what happens when theists gain control of a country, but you made a rather large mistake. You are simply lumping every religion into the same category. As long as a country is run by Christian rules, it does just fine.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Lies are bad because we should base our decisions on facts. Lies are not facts. I don't need an imaginary god to recognize what is right and wrong. "As long as a country is run by Christian rules, it does just fine." I'm certain that the persecuted Jews of the Inquisition would argue against that foolish statement. (Also, the slaves in the U.S. during the 17th and 18th centuries, and their descendants. Slavery and racism were loudly supported from the pulpit.)
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 lol So you don't need God to know right and wrong eh? If you decide what is moral and what isn't, then what you have decided ends with you. If you believe that murder is wrong, then I can assure you that many people feel that not murdering would be immoral. If you think it is good to murder, then there are a lot of people that would disagree with you there too. If morality goes no further than what you decide, then it really has no meaning. If God decides morality, it is universal.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Precisely. Every person, in the final analysis, decides what is right and wrong for them. You, me, everyone.
"If you believe that murder is wrong, then I can assure you that many people feel that not murdering would be immoral." Yes, and it's up to us to change these people, or, if absolutely necessary, keep them from murdering others by imprisonment. "If god decides morality," he (or she) is far too recitent for humankind to make informed decisions concerning it.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Also, I'm still awaiting your response to my first comment: Do you have any statistics to back up your assertions that "it isn't a given trait of atheists to be concerned about anyone but themselves," and "charities backed by atheists have selfish motives," and "when Christians help the poor, the positive effects tend to last for longer than when atheists help?" Please tell us where we can find them, and what neutral statistician compiled them.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Let me ask you one simply question. If an atheist, goes through his/her entire life, doing mostly "good", in the eyes of rationality and partially religion. Lets take the Christian religion, as an example. Now, this atheist does not steal, does not kill etc, but his/her only "flaw" is that he/she does not accept Jesus as the Savior, or for that matter, believe in a God governing the universe. Would your God still condemn this individual? Most likely I'd say.
That's true justice?
Haseeebo 1 year ago
@Haseeebo This hypothetical person doesn't exist according to Christianity. Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." In reality, we all fall far short of the perfection that God requires. Jesus repeatedly pointed out that good religious people aren't good enough. So how would an atheist make the cut?
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 hold on a second. "...religious people aren't good enough, so how would an atheist make the cut"? You automatically rule out that religious people are better than Atheists, just based on that fact alone? Wow...thats shocking. What you've just said is no different than the White slave owners, who automatically ruled out black people as lesser, or Hitler and the Nazi's who automatically ruled out Jews and other undesirables.
You're content with your decision of being so prejudice?
Haseeebo 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 furthermore, you mention that "we all fall far short of the perfection that God requires"...well IF that is true, are you content with believing in, and worshiping a God who isn't "all merciful", and "benevolent"? Let alone being a liar, and a hypocrite.
Interesting you would believe in a God with so many contradictions. Once again I ask you, would God make so many mistakes? Would he leave so much upto personal interpretation and ambiguity? I think not.
Haseeebo 1 year ago
@Haseeebo "What you've just said is no different than the White slave owners"
What I said is completely different. My point was that if a person that believes in God and is trying to follow the rules isn't good enough, then how could someone else make the cut when they insult God on a regular basis and care nothing for his laws.
As to your other point, you make claims that God has made mistakes, that he is imperfect and a liar. Those are pretty severe accusations. Can you back up these claims?
QuelDroma366 11 months ago
@QuelDroma366 You're stil claiming God's existence as FACT. If you had an ounce of rationality in you, you would realize that NO ONE KNOWS if God exists. We all simply believe or disbelieve, based on evidence of lack thereof.
As for my "accusations"...I can easily back up he claims.
Epicurus Trilema:
1.if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
2.if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
3.if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil
Also.
Haseeebo 11 months ago
@Haseeebo You've just oversimplified the situation. God is perfectly able to prevent evil and he often does. At the same time, he often allows evil as well. He does this, because he has given us free will and preventing us from ever doing evil would take away that free will. Another reason that he allows evil is to let us see what happens when we don't follow God and his laws.
QuelDroma366 11 months ago
@QuelDroma366 Soo God made us with free will, but also made us imperfect, and then punishes for being imperfect unless we say we're sorry that he created us imperfect...sounds kind of dickish if you ask me. And it's not really free will if he threatens us if we don't follow him. It's just plain old will with consequences. Nonetheless, God is not very nice for creating us imperfect, then punishing us for seeing no evidence for him at all in the Universe
TheRationalist76 6 months ago
@QuelDroma366 Going with the Monotheistic traditions (Semetic), God created Adam and Eve KNOWING they were going to eat the apple. God created the Devil (need I say more?). Isaiah 45:7
God killed children for making fun of Elisha's bald head for cryin out loud 2 Kg.2:23-24
Lets see the commandments.
Thou shall not commit adultery - God impregnates Mary while she is married to Joseph
Thou shall not murder...oh yeah we've been through that already.
theres more
Haseeebo 11 months ago
@Haseeebo "God created the Devil (need I say more?)"
God created the devil with free will. The devil chose to be bad
"God killed children for making fun of Elisha's bald head"
Those children were in their twenties, which is plenty old enough to know better. Elisha was God's prophet and those men were being disrespectful beyond simply saying "hey bald man!"
"God impregnates Mary while she is married to Joseph"
God didn't have sex with Mary. Plus they were engaged, not married.
QuelDroma366 11 months ago
@QuelDroma366 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me Deuteronomy 5:9
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 24:16
Haseeebo 11 months ago
@QuelDroma366 Correction: ^18th and 19th centuries^
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 LOL I can't believe you asked why lies are bad. Ever heard of rationality? Morals dictated by rationality, rather than divine guidance? I think you're making an even larger mistake by stating Christian rule as completely fine. Seems like discrimination of other ethnicities. Another "wonder" of Religion. Any Religion based on missionizing is in breach of basic human rights. (Freedom of Religion).
Unless you don't believe those rights are to be granted...do you?
Haseeebo 1 year ago
@Haseeebo I'm not really sure what rights you're referring to, but I don't have a problem with people sending out missionaries, every religion has the right to peacefully persuade others.
Concerning lies, you don't really have a reason for rationality or logic to exist if you believe that there is no god. Logic must be universal or else we would all have different logic and it would mean nothing, however if we say it is independent of our minds, then where did it come from?
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Logic is not universal. And who's to say it is independent of our minds? Logic, like everything else in the world, changes from time to time. From location to location. What may have been logical 1000 years ago, would be preposterous today. To say I have no reason for rationality or logic simply becaue I don't believe in God, is quite ignorant.
Oh and there's a difference between "peacefull persuasion", and historical accounts of missionaries. For all monotheistic religions.
Haseeebo 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 As for doubting whether Xenophile665 read the bible from cover to cover...well assuming he is an atheist, or agnostic, I think it might interest you to read up on a recent survey conducted by Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and Agnostics seemed to come on top as the most knowledgable, when it comes to Religion.
Interesting...isn't it? And quite obvious if you ask me. Not bragging, simply rationalizing why it is that "non-believers" came out on top.
Haseeebo 1 year ago
@Haseeebo As to this survey you mention, I don't trust the person doing the survey, it's too easy to make a bad survey or misrepresent results for this to be convincing evidence of anything. Also, even if we do assume that the survey is correct, it still doesn't address the real topic at he root of this discussion: does God exist? I have reasoned through this logically and listened to what atheists had to say for years, but I can't find a single convincing argument against him.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Thats fine as spirituality is for the individual, as I mentioned. Quite frankly I find it impossible to even attempt to disprove something that hasnt been proved to begin with, or which has shown evidence supporting its existence. It is upto those making the claims to prove Gods existence. Not the other way around. Besides that, there are numerous points of evidence against the stories of most religious scripture. Would God make such mistakes?
Haseeebo 1 year ago
If I was President, I would do away with Democracy. Fuck that bullshit. If you let the popular vote of a community run a local business rather the person that is right for the job it would fail. I know what's right to do. I'd start with the tax law, and cut it from 50,000 pages to about a 1000, if that. Fix all them stupid loopholes. Basically everyone pitches in the same amount all round, in a nutshell.
yourmomswallowsmycum 1 year ago
@yourmomswallowsmycum What you are suggesting is a direction that atheists tend to go. This direction sometimes takes form as communism and sometimes as socialism. Socialism gave birth to the Nazi's and communism, Russia. As you look through history you'll see that this is a plan for failure. Capitalism (which is the system the U.S. runs on) is a Christian idea and it is a contributing factor to the fact that we are the dominant world power.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 "Capitalism is a Christian idea?" Sorry, you can't back that up with the bible. In fact, Communism had its beginnings, not from atheists, but from primitive Christians (read Acts 2:44-45). Atheistic Nazi Germany? No, Hitler was Catholic. His SS soldiers' belt buckles were all inscribed, "Gott mit uns." That's German for "God (is) with us." Don't you think it's time you get into some genuine historical research, instead of echoing what you hear from pulpits?
Xenophile665 1 year ago
I see your point - but you can't very well pwn theists by saying that they tend to confuse atheism with socialism (though you are ofc right in this) when you quite clearly confuse socialism and what happened in the USSR. That wasn't even communism. Other than that, good point sir. Ta-ta.
AnonymousPsych 1 year ago
Haha, well, could we settle on 'authoritarian communitarianism?'
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Deal.
AnonymousPsych 1 year ago
I agree With Yeahbuddy2 down there, If social Darwinism is allowed, and you have humanistic natural selection, your saying that only certain people should be allowed to live. Jesus Loves everyone the same, no matter who you are- In that sense, I would rather follow a shameless, sinless God who became a man and Died for my Sins than Richard Dawkins.
Evers70HWT 1 year ago
Evolutionary theory only tells us how things are, not how they should be. You must understand this difference.
Personally, my entirely atheistic sense of morality leads me to want to help those less able to help themselves.
Oh, and atheists don't seek to elevate men to the position of Gods. Only religions have ever sought to do that.
JmkLcAeJsm 1 year ago 5
Comment removed
Mgoodwin14 1 year ago
@Evers70HWT, social Darwinism (aka, eugenics) is not a part of Darwin's original theory of evolution by natural selection. It is artificial (i.e., human decisions about who procreates and who doesn't).
Also, if Jesus "loves everyone the same," he would give them each the exact same chances in life. Then, either all would go to his Heaven, or be cast down to an everlasting Hell. I too would prefer to follow a shameless, sinless god. Read the bible from cover to cover -- very shameful, IMP.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 I seriously doubt your claim of reading the Bible from cover to cover. Even if you did though, you likely read it with little teaching regarding the meaning of passages and attempted to see as many flaws in it as you could.
When you do this, you begin reading it, insisting that it is inconsistent and made up. You don't try to understand things that don't make sense to you, it's just another tally mark on the board.
Search for God with an honest heart and you will find him.
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 The first 4 times I read it was when I was a child/teenager and Baptist. Then I read it twice when I was a young adult and had no specific denomination. Then I read it 4 more times when I was a member of the LDS church. I have read it one more time since I left the LDS and became an agnostic atheist. (Also Quran and others)
I read with honest intentions. How can you read dishonestly? ... ...
... If you think I'm lying, test me.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 BTW, I asked questions of ministers, bishops and other believers, when I was confused about things I read. Most of the times I read the bible, I was not doing it with the intent of "seeing as many flaws in it as I could," I read it to find out what it said.... ... ... I suggest you forgo trying to become a mind reader, and stick to your day job.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 Alright, so I pegged you wrong, thanks for the background info. But given what you've said I kind of have to ask: what made you decide to become an agnostic atheist?
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 I came to the conclusion that there is no god, that the concept is a construct of human imagination. If the bible were reliable, christians would be performing miracles hourly. They don't. God is imaginary.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Rather, I should say that I came to the conclusion that there was no available evidence that there is a god, and the concept of an all-powerful creator/deity is, in all likelihood, a construct of human imagination.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Xenophile665 Miracles happen everyday, but that doesn't mean that God is going to instantly solve every problem we have.
"If the bible were reliable, christians would be performing miracles hourly."
On what basis do you make this assumption
QuelDroma366 1 year ago
@QuelDroma366 Miracles do not happen every day, or, for that matter, any day. A miracle is an occurrence that could only happen through so-called "divine intervention," like regrowing arms and legs for amputees. This never happens. The alleged words of Jesus in John 14:12 and Mark 16:17 are the basis for my "assumption."
Xenophile665 1 year ago
@Evers70HWT I have to tear this apart a bit. For one, evolution does not tell people "how" to live. Second, Jesus clearly does not love everyone the same. He and God claim to be one and the same (more than once), and God clearly shows hatred and disdain for many of his creations thus =/= love. Not only that but he lays out what is and isn't a sin then disobey's his own first commandment which he calls a sin time and time again, how is that sinless?
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
Becoming an atheist is probably the best thing that has ever happened to me.
miles101457 2 years ago 6
@miles101457 Ditto. Just wish it had happened 40 years ago!
Xenophile665 1 year ago
Comment removed
miles101457 2 years ago
1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient"
NotCaringJustRelaxin 2 years ago
A complacent mind lumps all belief systems together under the title of "religion". This is your fundamental error. You must reason through the differences between the gods and their followers. Only then will your research be thorough and worthy of your claims.
First try reading the Bible and compare it with the Koran. The differences are astounding. Its like comparing a elephant to an onion . Of course, evolutionists are used to doing ridiculous things like that.
ThisIDig 2 years ago
An even more complacent mind substitutes semantics games for argument.
Call it what you will, evaluating truth claims is my game.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Isn't the Bible bloodier than the Quran?
NotCaringJustRelaxin 2 years ago
@NotCaringJustRelaxin No, Christian history is just older. All things indicate that the muslims are trying to catch up in that department.
bongolongo 1 year ago
So, why do we need a justice system? There is no moralilty among the beasts - they live by pure instinct. Why are we different? Why do only men have beards and not women? Why are there still comets if our universe is 13 billion years old (oort cloud is unobservable and taken by faith alone)? Why are there male and female? Why do some creatures remain the same throughout the fossil record? Why are you offended by God?
Study for your finals, read the Bible.
ThisIDig 2 years ago
In number order:
@1+2: Coz rape is natural.
@3: Women do have beards.
@4: Observable =/= being able to see it. All observation is ultimately inferential.
@5: See CDK007's excellent video on sex
@6: Why change a winning formula?
@7: I ain't offended at all.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago 2
I love how wordy atheists get. Especially in their responses to Christians. It's as if in order to convince yourself that you are right, you have to blather on for multiple posts. Have a nice day!
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
I used to get called 'wordy'. Then when I got to cambridge and got my degree people called me 'eloquent'. Funny that.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Meh, I still call it wordy. I prefer the Spartan (Laconic) method. Say what you mean and get it over with. Don't blather. It's annoying.
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
I find that having a point and attacking your antagonists style is inversely related.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Then we must both lack points to our arguments, as you are now attacking my style.
And my point was in my original post, if one has the wit to see it. I never get straight-forward answers from atheists. They always beat around the bush, blather on, and say so much that their point is lost. So, to keep things as laconic as possible: Say what you mean!
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
religion would be funny if it didnt kill so many people.
qualityrkc 2 years ago
Social Darwinism and Atheistic Communism would be funny, too, if they hadn't killed more people in one century than all world religions combined.
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago