JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
just found this vid :) you have an inspiring style. Full, on-topic detail, without the "forced lecture" or "defensive stance" feel. I'm looking forward to see what else you've made. Subbed
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Look, this earth & all life, was created! Fact! All scientists agree! If both sides of the argument believe in creation, why don't both sides worship the Force that did the creating? Right? You did nothing to create, nor I! You say the laws of science did it, I say yes too! But, laws, in themselves, don't create matter and then animate it with life! Only precise, planned manipulation, in concert, can theoretically do the creating! By who, or what Force?
@geetarnut Even if that was a good way too put it (and ive heard that argument a million times over) that does not in any way prove your god, it just fucking doesn´t. You still have no evidence what so ever for your big invisible man in the sky.
And I ask you this, if the world was created by god, who the fuck created god!
You see you can´t turn something illogical logical, and the fact remains, there is NO proof, what so ever of your god, nip shuit nada!
Even assuming your god is real, and did allow himself to be known l to everyone by some vague, nebulous, metaphysical woo woo feeling, that feeling does not fit the criteria of what we call knowledge.
Liked! I mean, bloody hell! I could tell you were reading, but still... How many nails do you want to hammer into that coffin?... (sorry, into that stigmata?)
So, is your argument (excuse my use of this word as it probably isn't an "argument", but it seems to somewhat fit, not in the "fighting about" sense" but rather position), that you have an absolute belief that you are defending, or are you simply running an open ended "forum" for discussion? I am assuming, if I heard right, that you do not believe in the God of Abraham/Issac/Jacob (i think i even spelled Issac wrong LOL). Curious. Thanks,
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
By "kinds" you mean "species"? Why not use that term? Besides you're dead wrong about the evolution of seperate species, how could you POSSIBLY have missed that one, if not simply because... you actually WANTED to and read pseudoscientific creationist-christian litterature and based your conclusions on what you read there? True or not? Honestly, do you think that species without reproductive organs reproduce by divine intervention today? No? Even simple lifeforms can reproduce.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
God gave us his word for us to know he is there its that simple you make it so complicated quit looking so deep use faith and you will have your proof
@2presiousGurlz you go looking to deep satan will deceive you start with Gods word look at his warnings and what he says about the things satan will use see how his word lines up with history and thangs happening now dig deeper after you learn the basics you cant start at the end and disbelief will hinder the truth that is satans way of keeping you from the truth
@purecountry35 The truth is that with your life you have to find your own answers. You are a christian I presume. That makes sense of . . . everything to you. For me, looking into something that will define part of me isn't wrong. And if it every is defined as wrong then I will decide that that is not something I choose to adhire to.
@2presiousGurlz Well it sound as if you are still searching for something I hope you can find the truth if you dont mind i will pray for you that you will find the truth may GOD bless you rather you believe or not
Haha my name is Noah ... I had this video playing so I could hear the audio while I was browsing Facebook. As soon as I heard my name I was like whaaa???
I agree. "The time to believe in god´s existince is when there is a positive evidence for it". That´s why I´m agnostic. And, "l don´t say the god claim is too extravagant to be possible". That´s why I´m agnostic. Maybe we have more in common than you think.
I´m agnostic and, in my opinion, that is the only reasonable position, when by reasonable you mean that you make choices based only on reason. Being an atheist or a theist is a step that demands a huge leap of faith, 'cause, as you said, we can´t say for sure there is a god (not talking about the christian), but neither we can say there is no god. If you proclaim yourself an atheist is because, someday, you´ve chosed to believe that there isn´t any, and that´se a lot of faith, my friend.
@lcprandini It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. Atheism is just a position in which you say that you are unconvinced that any gods exist. There may very well be some god somewhere, however, I haven't seen any evidence for one. Whether or not a god exists, it would be unreasonable for me to believe in a god as I haven't seen any evidence for one. I'm evaluating god claims like any other claim. If there is an utter lack of evidence for a claim, I reject the claim. That doesn't take faith.
@BrooklynRagtag sorry, man! Atheism is a position which you say you don´t believe in any kind of god. It is unreasonable (based on reasonable conclusions) to say there is a god, but it is also unreasonable to say there is not. You haven´t seen any evidence of the existence, but also, you can´t prove the non existence. Either way, (to belive or not), requires some kind of faith (faith = the belief on something tha can´t be proved).
@lcprandini Positive claims and negative claims aren't the same. An extraordinary positive claim that doesn't have any evidence should be rejected.
Did you know that unobservable and immaterial garbage trolls live on my front stoop? They want you to give me $20 and if you don't, they will give you an eternity of wet willies after you die. Are you agnostic about my claim? My claim could be true. It would obviously take faith to believe my claim. Does it take faith to be unconvinced by my claim?
A claim can be rejected, but we are not talking about claims, we are talking about evidences. My claim (that you can reject if you want) is that there are no evidences (proof) of the existence of a god, but also, there are no evidences of the non existence. If somebody brings to the table an argument that you reject because it is absurd (like your example), it doesn´t prove there isn´t a god, it just proves that the claim is not valid. (English is not my first language, so sorry for any mistake
@lcprandini There is no such thing as "evidence of the non-existence" of a thing. There can only a lack of positive supporting evidence for that thing.
A person making a positive claim has the burden of proof. If there is no supporting evidence for a claim, this counts as evidence against the claim. It takes faith to believe a claim that has no evidence, but it doesn't take faith to reject a claim that has no evidence.
You say "there is no god", can you prove it? Sounds like a positive claim to me. Do you believe on the non existence of a god (any god) based only on the fact the nobody presented to you a valid claim, or you know for sure based on something that is beyond contestation? You say: god can´t be proved, so there is no god. I say, god can´t be proved, so I can´t say he exists, but I also can´t say he (she, it) doesn´t exists until somebody proves it, otherwise, it is about belief (faith). Best.
@lcprandini You still aren't understanding this basic principle of epistemology. Saying "there is no god" is still a negative claim. It's describing an absence of something. The only evidence you can give for the absence of something is an absence of positive evidence for that thing. Also, I don't say "there is no god or gods." I say I don't have a good reason to believe in any gods. I'm taking the default position of disbelief.
Please give me evidence that there are no Martians in Italy.
I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree. I can prove the non existence of Martians in Italy. It seems impossible because of the size of the sample, but if I had all means necessary, that claim could be prooved. Narrow the sample down to four people in a room, can´t you prove there a no Martians among them? I also don´t have a good reasons to believe in any gods, but I don´t have good reasons to believe in the non existence. That´s why, im my opinion, both choices are about faith.
@lcprandini your argument would be good, except that religion does not only say that there are martians in the room. it also says that the martian is invisible,it can't present its self to you on demand,yet you have to follow its rule. no it does not take faith to not believe. I would be worried about you if it took you faith to not believe in unicorns. you are just not convince of their existence because of a lack of evidence.
@molyvenson we were not talking about religions. Complete the sentence: I know it is impossible to exist any kind of supreme being because... Notice I´ve used the verb to know.
By the way, the natural history is full of descripitions of unicorns, maybe not the ones described in mithology, but again, we are not talking about religion. I understand the point of view of atheists, I just don´t think that theists are any more unreasonable as defended on this video.
@lcprandini There are an infinite number of possible unobservable beings. The existence of one specific unobservable being is as infinitely unlikely as any other. This is why the default position is one of skepticism when there isn't evidence. This doesn't require faith. I don't have a problem with agnosticism. Atheism isn't a claim to ultimate knowledge that no gods exist, it is a rejection of the claims of believers on the grounds that they have not met their burden of evidence.
I accept that. Maybe we just understand the meaning of the word "faith" in different ways. My intial point was that the step that follows the understanding of the fact that the god issue is not proved, requires a decision that is not based on facts. Atheists and theists are not arguing about facts, but about chances, cause no position is driven by logical conclusions. What is not wrong, I also have some positions that are not logical conclusions that I have the faith are right.
@lcprandini I still don't feel I've made my point understood. The decision to believe any claim should be based on how extravagant the claim is and how much evidence supports it. 100% certainty doesn't exist anywhere, so we weigh the positive evidence. I don't treat the god question any differently from any other claim, but I think you do treat it differently. Quantum theory makes extravagant claims, but the evidence is staggering. God is an even more extravagant claim and there is no evidence.
Considering that the mankind and its knowledge have only few fractions of fractions of seconds if compared to the age of the Universe, sounds very insolent to say that the claim is too extravagant to be possible.Oh, my dear Horatio, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy ;-) Try applying the "Discurse on Method" on your line of thougt and, maybe, you´ll see that some ideas are not extravagant. I have the faith you won´t say Descartes was unreasonable ;-)
@lcprandini I don't say that the god claim is too extravagant to be possible. I would NEVER say that. No claim is too extravagant to be possible. The answers to our most vexing questions might very well be stranger than we can possibly imagine. That is where you are completely missing my point. There is an unlimited number of possible things that could be and it's fun to speculate, but the time time actually believe any of those possibilities is when there is positive evidence for it.
I do personally use the 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' argument _along with_ other arguments and evidence. Imagine with me for a moment: someone tells you that the Loch Ness Monster is real. You say prove it, they can't, so you survey the entire lake etc. and find absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that there is a monster in the lake. Does that mean for 100% certain that there is no monster? No. In the total absence of evidence, I find it logical to a point.
@Emrys93 Whooooaaaaaa....oh, yeah...hey again! So back to the whoooaaaaaa! Help me make that leap with you about Christianity being deductively valid while everything else is inductively valid or less. I wish I had time to respond to the rest, but as you can see, I'm up late again and have to get to bed or I'll be up chattering for hours. Morning and work both come early. Just had to get some explanation from you on the 13 billion year old rock vs. new rock dichotomy.
Bertrand Russell also started with a stern atheism in his younger years(he only taught mathematics till 1904+gave it up because he was afraid of becoming mentally insane by it,no joke).During his later life-he died at the age of 97-he became more+more an agnostic+even acknowledged some of the"merits"of - otherwise still bigoted - Christianity, because he knew that the"classical"antiquity was not so venerable as it appears to be.Much of Christian"mythology"has its roots in ancient Greek culture!
Sorry-but like many theorists you seem to have a bit a problem with correct linguistic terms:As far as i´m informed atheism has something to do with complete denial of a possible existence of something like "God" or a"higher principle"(no matter if it actually exists or not)while agnostics say:A bit more careful,people,WE DON´T KNOW exactly-if we can simply state that god exists or does not exist-primarily because we have human brains+they might be limited.The latter is NO ideological argument !
@MrSKINFLICK If God exists in the way we Christians say he does, he would interact with us and we would know he was there because of said interaction. God exists. Not to mention the whole infinite regress "delema" seeing as how we had to get here somehow and a God is the only thing that can explain it. Please respond with scientific stuff.
TheoreticalBullshit says that (at 14:36, reference to relevance is in video) "thats just how it works", but I would think that he would (because hes obviously very smart) be smart enough to realize that this also goes both ways for what he "would like to leave us with"(14:55) in as far as "Even if the evidence for God were not evidence of its His existence, it would still be, that the belief in evidence of that God is believable."
If God wants us to have a free will, than that free will has a purpose. I would say that that purpose is so that we would love him because we want to, not because we have to. Lets face it, loving someone because we have to is not love, but merely a choice based on the only alternative which is not even an alternative, not even a choice. Its just a fact, a reality. Must love. If that were the case the universe would not exist. Just heaven, and a heaven filled with mindless, unfulfilling robots.
@Emrys93 I may be missing your point, but how is loving God a matter of free will if the only alternative choice is eternal hellfire? Two choices - extra crispy or loving God? Help me out here. I realize that more fundamentalists than mainstream Christians lick their chops at the idea of eternal torture for non-believers, but hell IS a standard part of the belief structure, right?
@Emrys93 Hey man...thanks for the response. Two things. 1) I'm neither loving nor hating God because I can neither love nor hate something that I don't believe exists. I can, however, be very distressed and opposed to much of what happens and is taught/acted upon in the name of that idea (God), especially because I don't believe it exists. 2) I'm responding to your post about free will and why you think God wants us to have it. I'll continue in next post because I'm running out of room.
@1holysheit I forgot to mention that God does not advocate most of the things done in his name and therefore do not pertain to him at all. I believe, though i dont know because we just started talking, that this includes most if not all of the reasons you believe religion to be a bad thing. Correct me if Im wrong. Also I didnt mean any offence by saying that you are choosing hell for you must understand it is required as a Christian to believe that all who do not choose life choose death.
@Emrys93 Thanks for being respectful. I love discussion as well. So many places I could go here...let me start with the last sentence of your last post.."Also I didnt mean any offence by saying that you are choosing hell for you must understand it is required as a Christian to believe that all who do not choose life choose death." No offense taken. I know Christian dogma very well although I know that variations exist. To me, the fear of death is a big piece of religion and its origin.
@Emrys93 Choosing life or death (in my worldview) isn't a choice. You live until you die, and there's no way out of that. Religion offers a way to imagine yourself outliving death, but the fact remains, you will die. Game over...very likely. So, playing on the fear of death that all humans have, religion posits a way out of it: a blissful eternal existence if Daddy is obeyed (all i's dotted and t's crossed), or a torturous eternal existence if Daddy isn't obeyed...call it one hell of a spanking.
@1holysheit Well for me, the religious one, death has absolutly nothing do do with my decision. Only truth. I dont care if nothing happens when I die. There is no reason for fear. When I die, according to atheists, I will be nothing and therefore have no concerns. You also said "all i's dotted and t's crossed" but I doubt a Christian would describe belief that way, I know I dont. As for your reasoning on disbelief? I trust your not keeping them for fear of a good argument? : P
@Emrys93 Hey...sorry, I typed out my whole response first and now I'm copying and pasting it in pieces as they'll fit. So it's taken me a while to respond. Let me keep going with all the pieces of the response. Here they come.
God does it one better and does it for eternity? This strikes me as completely illogical human-manufactured bullshit. So what is God? An insecure, hand-wringing parent who "loves" his children so much that they can either love and worship him endlessly (why would he need that?) OR he will torture them endlessly? How is that the least bit loving? Or a "choice?" How is it different from your original comment about free will other than be heinously worse?
@1holysheit If there were no justice everyone would lose. We need, as humans, to know that everything will be accounted for. All wrongs righted. Ample choice is given to make the right one (i.e. this conversation). And on the contrary to your statment it is the only logical option unless you prefer chaos.
And please don't tell me that it grieves God for this to be the process....he is omnipotent...he can change the rules at any point. So the idea that we "choose" heaven or hell (life or death)....is groundless as a "choice." It's a game you cannot win without complete slavery (and some Christians are fond of embracing this relationship) and subservience to your capricious, vengeful master. Play right or burn.
@1holysheit The relationship is what it is and it is the only thing that fits us. Only this relationship makes us feel right. We are made for it. Its not slavery because of that. We want it because of how we are created. If you can fill the void in your soul with something else than please let me know. Its not a horrible experience as you think it is but rather the only thing that is helpful.
@Emrys93 To continue with your last questions, if "i's dotted and t's crossed" doesn't describe how salvation (compliance enforced by eternal punishment as the "logical" consequence of non-compliance) works, how would you say it? Why my disbelief? The illogic of Christian dogma (as covered throughout my posts...there are plenty more examples) AND lack of substantiating evidence outside of texts. I disbelieve in your God for the same reason(s) you probably disbelieve in Krishna, Zeus, etc.
@1holysheit For the first responce, How exactly do these principles not seem logical? Repercussion and every other part of your argument is necessary for a thriving community. God made the rules and we follow them, atheist or not. Justice is the main point. Without God, Billy's dad would have no reason to be locked up. Our basis for what is wrong is contingient on God and what he says is right or wrong. The principles are not projected to but derived from God.
@Emrys93 (cont.) Christianity in that case would still be plausible. To find out about the truth of naturalist claims we would need a time machine to go back in time to the big bang and see it for our selves. And even so it still wouldnt show us anyhting supernatural that might be going on. only the natural. So a good night to you as well, I await your response.
@Emrys93 So I assume that ancient texts and hearsay within those (much of which is internally inconsistent) have provided you with a time machine enabling you not only to fact check all the wilder claims upon which Christianity hinges (virgin birth, miracles, etc.) but also to travel beyond the physical world to other spiritual dimensions....wait, faith covers all that, right? BTW, do I KNOW the big bang happened? No. Do I know beyond any doubt that the earth is > 6,000 years old? You betcha...
@1holysheit Cool, I thought I might have lost you. I don’t care if it takes a couple of days or even longer for any responses, Im just glad for a continuation of our enthralling discussion. I must say that while going back through the posts and e-mails of posts that I have know idea how to piece it back together in chronological order so Im just going to respond to everything I think I might have missed.
@1holysheit Thank you for all of the compliments by the way, as I am also pleased to be able to openly discuss these things freely.
So on to it! I personally cant prescribe to a theory that says morals evolved over time. Morals are inherent, surpassing knowledge. That as far as Im concerned is a fact because some things are just wrong. Murder, rape and torturing babies (as well as many other things) are always wrong. That means they do not come from evolution.
@1holysheit If morals evolved, moral relativism would be king and unfortunately it doesn’t make sense. So to save time and typing on that here’s an hour long video if your interested on pretty much exactly how I feel on the matter.
@1holysheit If however, you believe that morals are absolute and people evolved in intelligence to find out through trial and error that what is right and wrong is that way because of reality, that begs a question. Why do the absolute morals of reality match perfectly with the Judeo Christian moral set? Because that’s exactly what it would look like if Christianity were true.
@1holysheit For another thing people go to Hell because they choose it for themselves. All know what’s right in their heart and have time and ability to make the right choice. It goes back to justice. Just because some people don’t like the fact of Hell doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary, or true for that matter.
@1holysheit As for Confucius and his predating of the golden rule only shows that what’s right is right no matter who says it or what time period it happened. For as you say its common sense. Also Judaism is taken back to 4004 B.C. with the heritage predating everything found human writing. Anything else that has to do with Ethics and where they came from would have to be decided on other grounds, namely which worldview is correct and the other reasons.
@1holysheit You also mentioned something about contradictions in the Bible and taking the women from other tribes.
I don’t believe that there are any contradictions, and before you get angry at me for that and give examples, I must say that I don’t know myself everything in the bible but I have checked out what scholars have to say about all of the things that have perplexed me and found every time that there is a perfectly good reason for all of them.
@1holysheit There are a lot of things in the Bible, that seem, when you first think about them that there must be something wrong. Like, for one example, when God told the Jews to conquer Jericho and kill all within the city walls including the children. But if you think about it by killing the children (who were not past the age of accountability) they were the only people in the city who would have or could have gone to heaven.
29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
@1holysheit That verse shows how little the things of this world (even our lives!) matter. So it was morally right to send the children to heaven. As for the adults in the city, they knew what they should have done (the Bible said they were faint of heart because they knew God was with the Jews and would destroy them). They had ample time to surrender. If they did, they would’ve been saved, like Rahab and her family did in that story.
@1holysheit The events of the Bible, the gospels especially dont need a time machine for testing their validity. The way that they are written, as most scholars and historians agree (even some skeptics) is the most plausible way to describe what actually happened. As far as I know there is nothing that makes them historically invalid. Only unverifiable claims that miracles cant happen. In fact most of what we know through archeology only confirms what I believe to be the history of the world.
@1holysheit When you say you “do know” the big bang happened, do you mean exactly the big bang, or a beginning to the universe? Another question, how do you know that the earth is older than 6000 years? Picture the big bang and the start of earth and all that as a stop motion film. 13 billion years worth of events in 6 days. Is it really as old as we think or does it just look that way.
@1holysheit Time is a funny thing. To an 80 year old man a year is short, but to an eight year old, Christmas next year is a long long time away. Time is perception. Without a human there to watch the big bang and the universe come into existence, we cant ever know. So no, the age of the universe (and the Earth) is not a problem for me at all.
@1holysheit Philosophy and logical thinking doesn’t present us with a way for positive atheism. One reason is the infinite regress problem. If naturalism is true and the big bang started it all, How? Where did the laws that constitute the big bang come from. Like gravity. How did gravity get there? It couldn’t have always just been there could it?
@Emrys93:i´m neither a Christian nor an atheist(which is just another form of religion probably)i´m agnostic with a tendency to assume something like a supernatural principle(Buddhists e.g.are careful about denying a god,but they don´t discuss the question of a god.Period.)I´m not wasting my time to read all your sermons here -but please occupy yourself with linguistics -you seem to have deficits there.
And how i answer in which way is NOT your business.Could it be you confuse yourself with God?
@MrSKINFLICK Im not exactly sure what your responding to here. I dont think I labeled you anything. I think you might be referring to when I said "we Christians" but I only meant me and other Christians. Thats all.
Linguistics is difficult for visual learners, which I am, due its abstract nature.
If your concerned with people inquiring how you answer certain questions, I wouldnt post comments on a page like this if I were you. No offence, but I dont think I was being unethical.
@Emrys93:Okay!1)Why IS"linguistics abstract" for a visual learner"(don´t even know whatTHAT is now). Linguistics is the basis of sciences,religions,philophophies+you have to practise it EVERY day,because otherwise you would be likely to get very demented.2)I just finished a care-taker job in an old people´s asylum for old demented women(+some men among)+ i don´t wish you to have to watch this.A certain logic is very necessary in our lives+i had the impression they gave it up too early!No joking!
@Emrys93: ALL "religions" are just passing things in the history of mankind+and it will be one day when mankind will be able to exist them without the need of such "crooks". Understand it now ?
Lots of these "ladies" (+ some men) were obviously imprisoned by religious manipulation most of their lives, watching some of the women i got a slight horror being gay. Even in their demented stage a few of them tried to offer sexual desires which was absurd because no one would have agreed. Reflect !
@Emrys93:In ONE respect (though NOT in many others)
Freud WAS right when declaring religion for an "ERSATZ" of unfulfilled sexual desires.This short time job was really a catharsis for me+i need to get a new (male) partner soon, who is not a bigotist+tolerant+ i dearly wish that now. The sight of these(very poor)people being afflicted by their lives´ story) deeply impressed me - never to get into such a situation when i might get old :)
Lots of discussion about so-called"religion"is a humbug!
Linguistics cannot be too abstract - because we have to learn speaking from the almost first days of our beginning lives.
Think about it !
The real science "linguistics" has something to do of which components our language patterns are made up and to which absurdities (well, at least sometimes) bigoted or conceited thinking or speaking (even in some fields of "science") may lead us.
@Emrys93 "couldn't have always just been there could it?" why not?
the infinite regress problem also applies to God. If theism is true and God started it all, where did he come from? he couldn't have always just been there, could he?
if you accept that any thing can exist without being created, why do you need a God? it could as well be the universe that was always here
if you think that nothing can exist without being created, the same problem that you have with the big bang applies to God
@Emrys93 Thanks man...good stuff. Super busy over next few days, and I want to respond as thoroughly as you did. I am really enjoying our dialogue. If I don't catch you before then, have a great Christmas!
@Emrys93 Hey man. Sorry for the delay - very busy time of year at work for me. First off, thanks for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that atheism may be a logical worldview despite what you see as lack of evidence. You'll get excoriated for that by some of your compatriots, as I'm sure you know, but I applaud your candor and integrity. You are the first Christian from whom I've heard such a statement, and I find it refreshing. Although we're each unlikely to convince the other, (cont)
@Emrys93 I'm grateful that we can exchange differing ideas freely, especially differing ideas about religion. I'd be killed in some countries for backing out of the religion into which I was born/indoctrinated - usually the same thing. So, to your first point(s). Consequences for actions are DEFINITELY needed for society to function and to ensure a "thriving community." You will get no argument from me whatsover on that point. Two problems though. (cont.)
@Emrys93 My point is this. Ethical behavior predated Christian dogma. And surely you don't want to lock horns around the "morality" of all the egregiously harsh "God-sanctioned" behavior in the Old Testatment. Yeeessshhh....now THAT was a free-for-all! Confucius' version of the golden rule dated back to around 500 years before Christ and did not require a God to dispense such common sense: "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." Logic for a functioning society.
@Emrys93 Christianity takes the "repercussions" aspect that is needed in a functioning society and assigns the most excrutiating punishment with no parole, no consideration, no chance to redeem oneself. "Choice 1" Jesus? Yes = heaven. "Choice 2" Jesus? No = hell. A hell far worse than any human jail can be.. Nonbelievers get to writhe in agony for eternity. What a logical/rational use of "repercussions." Eternal time-out engulfed in flames. No rehabilitation whatsoever. That seems evil to me.
@Emrys93 Ethics/morals do not come from God. Our estimation of what's wrong and right has evolved over time as we've become more civilized. Were ALL humans running free in unrestrained packs of murdering, thieving rapists and pillagers before God said to "knock it off?" Although the Old Testament God seemed squeamish about humans killing, that "don't kill" admonition withered in the face of his contradictory commands to murder neighboring tribes (and enjoy their women folk).
@1holysheit Fulfilling is the way I would describe salvation, unequivocal. It is the only thing that makes sense. If you say Christianity is not logical you havent checked your facts. Naturalism can Never explain existence. Other religions dont make logical sense as well as their being unverifiable as opposed to true Christianity which explains itself by the fact that can be verified by a background check that can only be explained by its truth.
@1holysheit All other religions take a lot more faith than Christianity. In my opinion Christianity is the only logical choice other than atheism but only because we dont have all of the scientific evidence for naturalism meaning its possible but undiscovered which again makes Christianity the only choice untill all of the evidence is in. And even when (and if) we find out that naturalsim is at all possible (which it currently isnt) it still doent mean it actually happened that way.
@Emrys93 To me, these basic tenets (esp. of Christianity) don't make logical sense. Rather, they seem like base, capricious, vengeful, nasty human qualities projected onto a supernatural being. Continuing with the parent analogy, most human parents aren't as nasty to their disobedient children as God. If the Daddy in my example actually took Billy out back and roasted him in the firepit for disobedience, we'd have him locked up as a sociopathic murderer.
@Emrys93 To quote your earlier post: "I would say that that purpose is so that we would love him because we want to, not because we have to. Lets face it, loving someone because we have to is not love, but merely a choice based on the only alternative which is not even an alternative, not even a choice. Its just a fact, a reality. Must love. If that were the case the universe would not exist. Just heaven, and a heaven filled with mindless, unfulfilling robots." I couldn't agree more, BUT..
@Emrys93 To quote your earlier post: "I would say that that purpose is so that we would love him because we want to, not because we have to. Lets face it, loving someone because we have to is not love, but merely a choice based on the only alternative which is not even an alternative, not even a choice. Its just a fact, a reality. Must love. If that were the case the universe would not exist. Just heaven, and a heaven filled with mindless, unfulfilling robots." If I believed, I would agree
@1holysheit First off I also would like to thank you for your promt responces, I enjoy a good discussion. Ok, If you cannot answer yes to the question "do you love God?", you do not love God and I dont think it matters if the reason is the fact that you dont think he exists. Thats part of the choice, choosing to believe in him and love him because you believe in him. I am curious though as to why you dont believe in God?
@Emrys93 (cont.) but your explanation makes it sounds as if free will to only love God wouldn't be free will...yes, I agree completely, in a universe-less heaven as you describe it. But we live in a universe, and, according to the bible, that necessarily introduces hell as the only alternative ("choice") to loving God while alive. That's where I got my simplistic, dichotomous examples. Isn't it that simple? And if not, why not? (I know I'm assuming your version of Christian dogma includes hell.)
@1holysheit Sorry I didnt know you werent finished. So yes your examples were perfect but we are now back at the begining, you are, by Christian standards, choosing hell. Like the boy in your example if he chose his fathers fire over the dinner. Therefore a choice. And yes all Christianity includes hell, if it doesnt it is not Christianity.
@Emrys93 Here's a loose parenting analogy based on the "give your kids choices" school of thought. "Now Billy, you can either eat all of this delicious meal that I've prepared for you (same meal every time, some foods that aren't Billy's favorites, some foods that Billy is repulsed by), or Daddy will show his boundless love for you by taking you out back and roasting you in the fire pit." Hmmmmm...choices, choices.
@msbarbara57 who said:"Do People actually read the Bible? B/c that is where I stopped believing and I became an atheist. It is not a movement, or I don't go to meetings. I am free to believe what I want. "
You say this as if you are surprised when you hear people STILL read the bible just because YOU didn't? If you have read it, then you would know they exist. I think this excludes you from arguing against the Bible. Now that we can assume you never read it in the first place. Have you?
@janover73 No, if you're presumptuous, I''ll say in fact, I dislike him (cruise) quite a but don't merge the two aspects of behaviors with the theo's.
@Ultramediacorp I was asking theoreticalBS, since he seemed to me he was making a cruise impression. I have no idea what you were talking about. Sorry
Unnecessary according to...who? You? The victim? Its relatives? What's the criteria by which the loss of a friend/relative is deemed "unnecessary"? Do you maybe know the consequences of such loss, 50 years in the future or something? Calling an action of omniscient, timeless God "unnecessary" is hilarious at best.
@SmokiSounds It's results based. When the results of the suffering are not valueable in some way, it is unnecessary. If this god exists and has some special long term plan whereby some greater good will come out of some suffering that our lack of omniscience prevents us from understanding, then he owes it to us to explain it if he wants us to understand and accept it. Given how he is described in the Bible, he definitely hasn't earned my trust as someone with our best interests in mind.
@Arkalius80 lol. He doesn't own SHIT to you. It's YOU who can't understand and accept it, and what's hilarious is you bring up the Bible but clearly only read a few quotes. Because otherwise, you'd know - anything, ANYthing that happens, has a reason and a necessity. Precisely because of His omniscience, because of knowing every possible outcome of every free choice made by every human. You and I, we can't talk about "results" until we're laying on our death beds.
I am an agnostic theist. If somebody would ask me wether or not I believe in God I would answer with Yes, I do.
If somebody would ask me wether there IS a god I would answer with I don´t know.
I have yet to find an argument from TB that I don´t agree with.
Why did I post that? I don´t know man, all I know is that I haven´t had Sex in like 2 months.
JaCkmArc0 2 days ago
i enjoyed this vid
grisgrisy 1 month ago
ps... shaddup AND WAIT...
TheCorwing 1 month ago
your smug mugging interferes with your idealism...
Use a static picture and then ramble/rant...
it will stop all of the eager to START listening because your message is stop-gapped with your MASSIVE ONLINE EGO...
TheCorwing 1 month ago
Dammit I want to play too! Is this Veritas dude gone? I can't find his video.
shabido1 1 month ago
Finally, someone who put up the freaking links.
OK, most atheists are lazy, but this guy is on the ball.
shabido1 1 month ago
Princess Bride, Poison scene
ChadMault 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
just found this vid :) you have an inspiring style. Full, on-topic detail, without the "forced lecture" or "defensive stance" feel. I'm looking forward to see what else you've made. Subbed
skwiggs103 1 month ago
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
RagdollRalph 2 months ago 2
Look, this earth & all life, was created! Fact! All scientists agree! If both sides of the argument believe in creation, why don't both sides worship the Force that did the creating? Right? You did nothing to create, nor I! You say the laws of science did it, I say yes too! But, laws, in themselves, don't create matter and then animate it with life! Only precise, planned manipulation, in concert, can theoretically do the creating! By who, or what Force?
geetarnut 1 month ago
@geetarnut Even if that was a good way too put it (and ive heard that argument a million times over) that does not in any way prove your god, it just fucking doesn´t. You still have no evidence what so ever for your big invisible man in the sky.
And I ask you this, if the world was created by god, who the fuck created god!
You see you can´t turn something illogical logical, and the fact remains, there is NO proof, what so ever of your god, nip shuit nada!
Study real science man.
RagdollRalph 1 month ago
You weren't missed
daverigby23 2 months ago
@shunjintribble: I agree, my favorite line in this vid by far
LynkJRayvonn 2 months ago
You are so cute and handsome.
There. I just have to say it.
Mabuhay from the Philippines!
A1441 2 months ago
"...anything AFTER that... is just having FUN!" That was beautiful!
shujintribble 2 months ago 2
Even assuming your god is real, and did allow himself to be known l to everyone by some vague, nebulous, metaphysical woo woo feeling, that feeling does not fit the criteria of what we call knowledge.
setheroon1 3 months ago
Liked! I mean, bloody hell! I could tell you were reading, but still... How many nails do you want to hammer into that coffin?... (sorry, into that stigmata?)
MrLittletomdj 3 months ago
So, is your argument (excuse my use of this word as it probably isn't an "argument", but it seems to somewhat fit, not in the "fighting about" sense" but rather position), that you have an absolute belief that you are defending, or are you simply running an open ended "forum" for discussion? I am assuming, if I heard right, that you do not believe in the God of Abraham/Issac/Jacob (i think i even spelled Issac wrong LOL). Curious. Thanks,
JesusIsAlive4U 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Are you sure it isn't possible that all life on earth is descended from a single, more or less, ancestor?
pjnlsn 4 months ago
@Mogley52
By "kinds" you mean "species"? Why not use that term? Besides you're dead wrong about the evolution of seperate species, how could you POSSIBLY have missed that one, if not simply because... you actually WANTED to and read pseudoscientific creationist-christian litterature and based your conclusions on what you read there? True or not? Honestly, do you think that species without reproductive organs reproduce by divine intervention today? No? Even simple lifeforms can reproduce.
superfatamusic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
God gave us his word for us to know he is there its that simple you make it so complicated quit looking so deep use faith and you will have your proof
purecountry35 7 months ago
@purecountry35 Unfortunately faith isn't a pathway to truth, but investigation is.
TheRationalRant 7 months ago
@purecountry35 Why not look deep.
2presiousGurlz 6 months ago
@2presiousGurlz you go looking to deep satan will deceive you start with Gods word look at his warnings and what he says about the things satan will use see how his word lines up with history and thangs happening now dig deeper after you learn the basics you cant start at the end and disbelief will hinder the truth that is satans way of keeping you from the truth
purecountry35 6 months ago
@purecountry35 The truth is that with your life you have to find your own answers. You are a christian I presume. That makes sense of . . . everything to you. For me, looking into something that will define part of me isn't wrong. And if it every is defined as wrong then I will decide that that is not something I choose to adhire to.
2presiousGurlz 6 months ago
@2presiousGurlz Well it sound as if you are still searching for something I hope you can find the truth if you dont mind i will pray for you that you will find the truth may GOD bless you rather you believe or not
purecountry35 6 months ago
@purecountry35 I will thank you for that. Just wondering, have you ever heard the phrase " I want to say I did more that pray"
2presiousGurlz 6 months ago
@2presiousGurlz no i cant say i have
purecountry35 6 months ago
Haha my name is Noah ... I had this video playing so I could hear the audio while I was browsing Facebook. As soon as I heard my name I was like whaaa???
theFriendlyHughes 7 months ago
GOOD video
abarbar06 8 months ago
I know the real answer : ( A BIG FLUFFY CAT CREATED THE UNIVERSE, His meow meow powers plus meow mix and yarn ball = the creation )
mceltv 9 months ago 2
I agree. "The time to believe in god´s existince is when there is a positive evidence for it". That´s why I´m agnostic. And, "l don´t say the god claim is too extravagant to be possible". That´s why I´m agnostic. Maybe we have more in common than you think.
lcprandini 9 months ago
I just found one of my heroes.
ShazerThe 10 months ago
It's a good thing you had a screen to read off of because you sure do talk alot.
Analeigh101 10 months ago
I´m agnostic and, in my opinion, that is the only reasonable position, when by reasonable you mean that you make choices based only on reason. Being an atheist or a theist is a step that demands a huge leap of faith, 'cause, as you said, we can´t say for sure there is a god (not talking about the christian), but neither we can say there is no god. If you proclaim yourself an atheist is because, someday, you´ve chosed to believe that there isn´t any, and that´se a lot of faith, my friend.
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. Atheism is just a position in which you say that you are unconvinced that any gods exist. There may very well be some god somewhere, however, I haven't seen any evidence for one. Whether or not a god exists, it would be unreasonable for me to believe in a god as I haven't seen any evidence for one. I'm evaluating god claims like any other claim. If there is an utter lack of evidence for a claim, I reject the claim. That doesn't take faith.
BrooklynRagtag 10 months ago
@BrooklynRagtag sorry, man! Atheism is a position which you say you don´t believe in any kind of god. It is unreasonable (based on reasonable conclusions) to say there is a god, but it is also unreasonable to say there is not. You haven´t seen any evidence of the existence, but also, you can´t prove the non existence. Either way, (to belive or not), requires some kind of faith (faith = the belief on something tha can´t be proved).
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini Positive claims and negative claims aren't the same. An extraordinary positive claim that doesn't have any evidence should be rejected.
Did you know that unobservable and immaterial garbage trolls live on my front stoop? They want you to give me $20 and if you don't, they will give you an eternity of wet willies after you die. Are you agnostic about my claim? My claim could be true. It would obviously take faith to believe my claim. Does it take faith to be unconvinced by my claim?
BrooklynRagtag 10 months ago
A claim can be rejected, but we are not talking about claims, we are talking about evidences. My claim (that you can reject if you want) is that there are no evidences (proof) of the existence of a god, but also, there are no evidences of the non existence. If somebody brings to the table an argument that you reject because it is absurd (like your example), it doesn´t prove there isn´t a god, it just proves that the claim is not valid. (English is not my first language, so sorry for any mistake
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini There is no such thing as "evidence of the non-existence" of a thing. There can only a lack of positive supporting evidence for that thing.
A person making a positive claim has the burden of proof. If there is no supporting evidence for a claim, this counts as evidence against the claim. It takes faith to believe a claim that has no evidence, but it doesn't take faith to reject a claim that has no evidence.
I hope this is making sense to you.
Best,
BR
BrooklynRagtag 10 months ago
You say "there is no god", can you prove it? Sounds like a positive claim to me. Do you believe on the non existence of a god (any god) based only on the fact the nobody presented to you a valid claim, or you know for sure based on something that is beyond contestation? You say: god can´t be proved, so there is no god. I say, god can´t be proved, so I can´t say he exists, but I also can´t say he (she, it) doesn´t exists until somebody proves it, otherwise, it is about belief (faith). Best.
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini You still aren't understanding this basic principle of epistemology. Saying "there is no god" is still a negative claim. It's describing an absence of something. The only evidence you can give for the absence of something is an absence of positive evidence for that thing. Also, I don't say "there is no god or gods." I say I don't have a good reason to believe in any gods. I'm taking the default position of disbelief.
Please give me evidence that there are no Martians in Italy.
BrooklynRagtag 10 months ago
I respect your opinion, but I strongly disagree. I can prove the non existence of Martians in Italy. It seems impossible because of the size of the sample, but if I had all means necessary, that claim could be prooved. Narrow the sample down to four people in a room, can´t you prove there a no Martians among them? I also don´t have a good reasons to believe in any gods, but I don´t have good reasons to believe in the non existence. That´s why, im my opinion, both choices are about faith.
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini your argument would be good, except that religion does not only say that there are martians in the room. it also says that the martian is invisible,it can't present its self to you on demand,yet you have to follow its rule. no it does not take faith to not believe. I would be worried about you if it took you faith to not believe in unicorns. you are just not convince of their existence because of a lack of evidence.
molyvenson 10 months ago
@molyvenson we were not talking about religions. Complete the sentence: I know it is impossible to exist any kind of supreme being because... Notice I´ve used the verb to know.
By the way, the natural history is full of descripitions of unicorns, maybe not the ones described in mithology, but again, we are not talking about religion. I understand the point of view of atheists, I just don´t think that theists are any more unreasonable as defended on this video.
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini There are an infinite number of possible unobservable beings. The existence of one specific unobservable being is as infinitely unlikely as any other. This is why the default position is one of skepticism when there isn't evidence. This doesn't require faith. I don't have a problem with agnosticism. Atheism isn't a claim to ultimate knowledge that no gods exist, it is a rejection of the claims of believers on the grounds that they have not met their burden of evidence.
BrooklynRagtag 10 months ago
I accept that. Maybe we just understand the meaning of the word "faith" in different ways. My intial point was that the step that follows the understanding of the fact that the god issue is not proved, requires a decision that is not based on facts. Atheists and theists are not arguing about facts, but about chances, cause no position is driven by logical conclusions. What is not wrong, I also have some positions that are not logical conclusions that I have the faith are right.
lcprandini 10 months ago
@lcprandini I still don't feel I've made my point understood. The decision to believe any claim should be based on how extravagant the claim is and how much evidence supports it. 100% certainty doesn't exist anywhere, so we weigh the positive evidence. I don't treat the god question any differently from any other claim, but I think you do treat it differently. Quantum theory makes extravagant claims, but the evidence is staggering. God is an even more extravagant claim and there is no evidence.
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
Considering that the mankind and its knowledge have only few fractions of fractions of seconds if compared to the age of the Universe, sounds very insolent to say that the claim is too extravagant to be possible.Oh, my dear Horatio, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy ;-) Try applying the "Discurse on Method" on your line of thougt and, maybe, you´ll see that some ideas are not extravagant. I have the faith you won´t say Descartes was unreasonable ;-)
lcprandini 9 months ago
@lcprandini I don't say that the god claim is too extravagant to be possible. I would NEVER say that. No claim is too extravagant to be possible. The answers to our most vexing questions might very well be stranger than we can possibly imagine. That is where you are completely missing my point. There is an unlimited number of possible things that could be and it's fun to speculate, but the time time actually believe any of those possibilities is when there is positive evidence for it.
BrooklynRagtag 9 months ago
Thanks for bringing up the truth that "atheism" is a very succinct answer to a very narrow question.
SmallGreenPlanetoid 10 months ago
I fucking love you brilliant man, so many amazing points.
bnote1990 10 months ago
U should become a priest, your bullshit is persuasive:)
good description of atheist i would say.
SilveradoNL 11 months ago
ENOUGH WITH THE SEMANTICS!!!
thanman35 11 months ago
Veritas48 was a complete moron. I am glad he's of youtube. Such a good riddance.
Ekenedil 1 year ago
I do personally use the 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' argument _along with_ other arguments and evidence. Imagine with me for a moment: someone tells you that the Loch Ness Monster is real. You say prove it, they can't, so you survey the entire lake etc. and find absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that there is a monster in the lake. Does that mean for 100% certain that there is no monster? No. In the total absence of evidence, I find it logical to a point.
kfk4life 1 year ago
Whoever hacked Veritas' channel is probably an atheist, and that makes me extremely angry, because he is giving us gentle folks a VERY bad name.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
I believe in God.
KrfNYC2 1 year ago
@KrfNYC2 thanks for sharing, retard!
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlueSpirals I'm sorry if I've upset you.
KrfNYC2 1 year ago
What came to be? A thirteen billion year old rock or a new one?
Christianity is deductively valid, everything else is inductively valid or less!
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Whooooaaaaaa....oh, yeah...hey again! So back to the whoooaaaaaa! Help me make that leap with you about Christianity being deductively valid while everything else is inductively valid or less. I wish I had time to respond to the rest, but as you can see, I'm up late again and have to get to bed or I'll be up chattering for hours. Morning and work both come early. Just had to get some explanation from you on the 13 billion year old rock vs. new rock dichotomy.
1holysheit 1 year ago
your ego isnt hugeee at all is it lol
jaggerofgy 1 year ago
you have a hole bunch of comments do you read them all?
and whats up with q&a will you make a new one?
MoonLighTz0r 1 year ago
Bertrand Russell also started with a stern atheism in his younger years(he only taught mathematics till 1904+gave it up because he was afraid of becoming mentally insane by it,no joke).During his later life-he died at the age of 97-he became more+more an agnostic+even acknowledged some of the"merits"of - otherwise still bigoted - Christianity, because he knew that the"classical"antiquity was not so venerable as it appears to be.Much of Christian"mythology"has its roots in ancient Greek culture!
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
Sorry-but like many theorists you seem to have a bit a problem with correct linguistic terms:As far as i´m informed atheism has something to do with complete denial of a possible existence of something like "God" or a"higher principle"(no matter if it actually exists or not)while agnostics say:A bit more careful,people,WE DON´T KNOW exactly-if we can simply state that god exists or does not exist-primarily because we have human brains+they might be limited.The latter is NO ideological argument !
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
@MrSKINFLICK If God exists in the way we Christians say he does, he would interact with us and we would know he was there because of said interaction. God exists. Not to mention the whole infinite regress "delema" seeing as how we had to get here somehow and a God is the only thing that can explain it. Please respond with scientific stuff.
Emrys93 1 year ago
TheoreticalBullshit says that (at 14:36, reference to relevance is in video) "thats just how it works", but I would think that he would (because hes obviously very smart) be smart enough to realize that this also goes both ways for what he "would like to leave us with"(14:55) in as far as "Even if the evidence for God were not evidence of its His existence, it would still be, that the belief in evidence of that God is believable."
Emrys93 1 year ago
If God wants us to have a free will, than that free will has a purpose. I would say that that purpose is so that we would love him because we want to, not because we have to. Lets face it, loving someone because we have to is not love, but merely a choice based on the only alternative which is not even an alternative, not even a choice. Its just a fact, a reality. Must love. If that were the case the universe would not exist. Just heaven, and a heaven filled with mindless, unfulfilling robots.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 I may be missing your point, but how is loving God a matter of free will if the only alternative choice is eternal hellfire? Two choices - extra crispy or loving God? Help me out here. I realize that more fundamentalists than mainstream Christians lick their chops at the idea of eternal torture for non-believers, but hell IS a standard part of the belief structure, right?
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit Its oviously not as simple as you put it because you're not curretly loving God now are you?
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Hey man...thanks for the response. Two things. 1) I'm neither loving nor hating God because I can neither love nor hate something that I don't believe exists. I can, however, be very distressed and opposed to much of what happens and is taught/acted upon in the name of that idea (God), especially because I don't believe it exists. 2) I'm responding to your post about free will and why you think God wants us to have it. I'll continue in next post because I'm running out of room.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit I forgot to mention that God does not advocate most of the things done in his name and therefore do not pertain to him at all. I believe, though i dont know because we just started talking, that this includes most if not all of the reasons you believe religion to be a bad thing. Correct me if Im wrong. Also I didnt mean any offence by saying that you are choosing hell for you must understand it is required as a Christian to believe that all who do not choose life choose death.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Thanks for being respectful. I love discussion as well. So many places I could go here...let me start with the last sentence of your last post.."Also I didnt mean any offence by saying that you are choosing hell for you must understand it is required as a Christian to believe that all who do not choose life choose death." No offense taken. I know Christian dogma very well although I know that variations exist. To me, the fear of death is a big piece of religion and its origin.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Choosing life or death (in my worldview) isn't a choice. You live until you die, and there's no way out of that. Religion offers a way to imagine yourself outliving death, but the fact remains, you will die. Game over...very likely. So, playing on the fear of death that all humans have, religion posits a way out of it: a blissful eternal existence if Daddy is obeyed (all i's dotted and t's crossed), or a torturous eternal existence if Daddy isn't obeyed...call it one hell of a spanking.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit Well for me, the religious one, death has absolutly nothing do do with my decision. Only truth. I dont care if nothing happens when I die. There is no reason for fear. When I die, according to atheists, I will be nothing and therefore have no concerns. You also said "all i's dotted and t's crossed" but I doubt a Christian would describe belief that way, I know I dont. As for your reasoning on disbelief? I trust your not keeping them for fear of a good argument? : P
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Hey...sorry, I typed out my whole response first and now I'm copying and pasting it in pieces as they'll fit. So it's taken me a while to respond. Let me keep going with all the pieces of the response. Here they come.
1holysheit 1 year ago
God does it one better and does it for eternity? This strikes me as completely illogical human-manufactured bullshit. So what is God? An insecure, hand-wringing parent who "loves" his children so much that they can either love and worship him endlessly (why would he need that?) OR he will torture them endlessly? How is that the least bit loving? Or a "choice?" How is it different from your original comment about free will other than be heinously worse?
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit If there were no justice everyone would lose. We need, as humans, to know that everything will be accounted for. All wrongs righted. Ample choice is given to make the right one (i.e. this conversation). And on the contrary to your statment it is the only logical option unless you prefer chaos.
Emrys93 1 year ago
And please don't tell me that it grieves God for this to be the process....he is omnipotent...he can change the rules at any point. So the idea that we "choose" heaven or hell (life or death)....is groundless as a "choice." It's a game you cannot win without complete slavery (and some Christians are fond of embracing this relationship) and subservience to your capricious, vengeful master. Play right or burn.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit The relationship is what it is and it is the only thing that fits us. Only this relationship makes us feel right. We are made for it. Its not slavery because of that. We want it because of how we are created. If you can fill the void in your soul with something else than please let me know. Its not a horrible experience as you think it is but rather the only thing that is helpful.
Emrys93 1 year ago
Comment removed
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 To continue with your last questions, if "i's dotted and t's crossed" doesn't describe how salvation (compliance enforced by eternal punishment as the "logical" consequence of non-compliance) works, how would you say it? Why my disbelief? The illogic of Christian dogma (as covered throughout my posts...there are plenty more examples) AND lack of substantiating evidence outside of texts. I disbelieve in your God for the same reason(s) you probably disbelieve in Krishna, Zeus, etc.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit It might take me a minute to respond therer is a lot there.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 No worries...take your time. I need to hit the sack anyway so I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'm enjoying our discussion. Sleep well!
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit For the first responce, How exactly do these principles not seem logical? Repercussion and every other part of your argument is necessary for a thriving community. God made the rules and we follow them, atheist or not. Justice is the main point. Without God, Billy's dad would have no reason to be locked up. Our basis for what is wrong is contingient on God and what he says is right or wrong. The principles are not projected to but derived from God.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 (cont.) Christianity in that case would still be plausible. To find out about the truth of naturalist claims we would need a time machine to go back in time to the big bang and see it for our selves. And even so it still wouldnt show us anyhting supernatural that might be going on. only the natural. So a good night to you as well, I await your response.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 So I assume that ancient texts and hearsay within those (much of which is internally inconsistent) have provided you with a time machine enabling you not only to fact check all the wilder claims upon which Christianity hinges (virgin birth, miracles, etc.) but also to travel beyond the physical world to other spiritual dimensions....wait, faith covers all that, right? BTW, do I KNOW the big bang happened? No. Do I know beyond any doubt that the earth is > 6,000 years old? You betcha...
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit Cool, I thought I might have lost you. I don’t care if it takes a couple of days or even longer for any responses, Im just glad for a continuation of our enthralling discussion. I must say that while going back through the posts and e-mails of posts that I have know idea how to piece it back together in chronological order so Im just going to respond to everything I think I might have missed.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit Thank you for all of the compliments by the way, as I am also pleased to be able to openly discuss these things freely.
So on to it! I personally cant prescribe to a theory that says morals evolved over time. Morals are inherent, surpassing knowledge. That as far as Im concerned is a fact because some things are just wrong. Murder, rape and torturing babies (as well as many other things) are always wrong. That means they do not come from evolution.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit If morals evolved, moral relativism would be king and unfortunately it doesn’t make sense. So to save time and typing on that here’s an hour long video if your interested on pretty much exactly how I feel on the matter.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit If however, you believe that morals are absolute and people evolved in intelligence to find out through trial and error that what is right and wrong is that way because of reality, that begs a question. Why do the absolute morals of reality match perfectly with the Judeo Christian moral set? Because that’s exactly what it would look like if Christianity were true.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit For another thing people go to Hell because they choose it for themselves. All know what’s right in their heart and have time and ability to make the right choice. It goes back to justice. Just because some people don’t like the fact of Hell doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary, or true for that matter.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit As for Confucius and his predating of the golden rule only shows that what’s right is right no matter who says it or what time period it happened. For as you say its common sense. Also Judaism is taken back to 4004 B.C. with the heritage predating everything found human writing. Anything else that has to do with Ethics and where they came from would have to be decided on other grounds, namely which worldview is correct and the other reasons.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit You also mentioned something about contradictions in the Bible and taking the women from other tribes.
I don’t believe that there are any contradictions, and before you get angry at me for that and give examples, I must say that I don’t know myself everything in the bible but I have checked out what scholars have to say about all of the things that have perplexed me and found every time that there is a perfectly good reason for all of them.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit There are a lot of things in the Bible, that seem, when you first think about them that there must be something wrong. Like, for one example, when God told the Jews to conquer Jericho and kill all within the city walls including the children. But if you think about it by killing the children (who were not past the age of accountability) they were the only people in the city who would have or could have gone to heaven.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit Mathew 5:29-30
29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit That verse shows how little the things of this world (even our lives!) matter. So it was morally right to send the children to heaven. As for the adults in the city, they knew what they should have done (the Bible said they were faint of heart because they knew God was with the Jews and would destroy them). They had ample time to surrender. If they did, they would’ve been saved, like Rahab and her family did in that story.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit As for other parts of the Bible that don’t seem right, I would have to address them on a case by case basis so I’ll move on.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit The events of the Bible, the gospels especially dont need a time machine for testing their validity. The way that they are written, as most scholars and historians agree (even some skeptics) is the most plausible way to describe what actually happened. As far as I know there is nothing that makes them historically invalid. Only unverifiable claims that miracles cant happen. In fact most of what we know through archeology only confirms what I believe to be the history of the world.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit When you say you “do know” the big bang happened, do you mean exactly the big bang, or a beginning to the universe? Another question, how do you know that the earth is older than 6000 years? Picture the big bang and the start of earth and all that as a stop motion film. 13 billion years worth of events in 6 days. Is it really as old as we think or does it just look that way.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit Time is a funny thing. To an 80 year old man a year is short, but to an eight year old, Christmas next year is a long long time away. Time is perception. Without a human there to watch the big bang and the universe come into existence, we cant ever know. So no, the age of the universe (and the Earth) is not a problem for me at all.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit Philosophy and logical thinking doesn’t present us with a way for positive atheism. One reason is the infinite regress problem. If naturalism is true and the big bang started it all, How? Where did the laws that constitute the big bang come from. Like gravity. How did gravity get there? It couldn’t have always just been there could it?
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 total argument from incredulity. and argument from ignorance.
BlueSpirals 1 year ago
@Emrys93:i´m neither a Christian nor an atheist(which is just another form of religion probably)i´m agnostic with a tendency to assume something like a supernatural principle(Buddhists e.g.are careful about denying a god,but they don´t discuss the question of a god.Period.)I´m not wasting my time to read all your sermons here -but please occupy yourself with linguistics -you seem to have deficits there.
And how i answer in which way is NOT your business.Could it be you confuse yourself with God?
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
@MrSKINFLICK Im not exactly sure what your responding to here. I dont think I labeled you anything. I think you might be referring to when I said "we Christians" but I only meant me and other Christians. Thats all.
Linguistics is difficult for visual learners, which I am, due its abstract nature.
If your concerned with people inquiring how you answer certain questions, I wouldnt post comments on a page like this if I were you. No offence, but I dont think I was being unethical.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93:Okay!1)Why IS"linguistics abstract" for a visual learner"(don´t even know whatTHAT is now). Linguistics is the basis of sciences,religions,philophophies+you have to practise it EVERY day,because otherwise you would be likely to get very demented.2)I just finished a care-taker job in an old people´s asylum for old demented women(+some men among)+ i don´t wish you to have to watch this.A certain logic is very necessary in our lives+i had the impression they gave it up too early!No joking!
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
@Emrys93: ALL "religions" are just passing things in the history of mankind+and it will be one day when mankind will be able to exist them without the need of such "crooks". Understand it now ?
Lots of these "ladies" (+ some men) were obviously imprisoned by religious manipulation most of their lives, watching some of the women i got a slight horror being gay. Even in their demented stage a few of them tried to offer sexual desires which was absurd because no one would have agreed. Reflect !
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
@Emrys93:In ONE respect (though NOT in many others)
Freud WAS right when declaring religion for an "ERSATZ" of unfulfilled sexual desires.This short time job was really a catharsis for me+i need to get a new (male) partner soon, who is not a bigotist+tolerant+ i dearly wish that now. The sight of these(very poor)people being afflicted by their lives´ story) deeply impressed me - never to get into such a situation when i might get old :)
Lots of discussion about so-called"religion"is a humbug!
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
@Emrys93: One last adding:
Linguistics cannot be too abstract - because we have to learn speaking from the almost first days of our beginning lives.
Think about it !
The real science "linguistics" has something to do of which components our language patterns are made up and to which absurdities (well, at least sometimes) bigoted or conceited thinking or speaking (even in some fields of "science") may lead us.
Nothing more and nothing less.
MrSKINFLICK 1 year ago
@Emrys93 "couldn't have always just been there could it?" why not?
the infinite regress problem also applies to God. If theism is true and God started it all, where did he come from? he couldn't have always just been there, could he?
if you accept that any thing can exist without being created, why do you need a God? it could as well be the universe that was always here
if you think that nothing can exist without being created, the same problem that you have with the big bang applies to God
GeistWerk 1 year ago
@GeistWerk
I completely agree. Also they seem to have forgotten that their God DID create something out of nothing (according to them of course).
LanteanKnight 1 year ago
@1holysheit The earlier post referencing a video would post so you’ll have to look for Greg Koukl moral relativism
Ok, I’m all out for now. The table is yours and I’m sorry writing so much but I had to in order to cover all necessary ground. I hope you enjoy!
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Thanks man...good stuff. Super busy over next few days, and I want to respond as thoroughly as you did. I am really enjoying our dialogue. If I don't catch you before then, have a great Christmas!
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit Take your time and you have a great Christmas too!
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Hey man. Sorry for the delay - very busy time of year at work for me. First off, thanks for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that atheism may be a logical worldview despite what you see as lack of evidence. You'll get excoriated for that by some of your compatriots, as I'm sure you know, but I applaud your candor and integrity. You are the first Christian from whom I've heard such a statement, and I find it refreshing. Although we're each unlikely to convince the other, (cont)
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 I'm grateful that we can exchange differing ideas freely, especially differing ideas about religion. I'd be killed in some countries for backing out of the religion into which I was born/indoctrinated - usually the same thing. So, to your first point(s). Consequences for actions are DEFINITELY needed for society to function and to ensure a "thriving community." You will get no argument from me whatsover on that point. Two problems though. (cont.)
1holysheit 1 year ago
Comment removed
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 My point is this. Ethical behavior predated Christian dogma. And surely you don't want to lock horns around the "morality" of all the egregiously harsh "God-sanctioned" behavior in the Old Testatment. Yeeessshhh....now THAT was a free-for-all! Confucius' version of the golden rule dated back to around 500 years before Christ and did not require a God to dispense such common sense: "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." Logic for a functioning society.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Christianity takes the "repercussions" aspect that is needed in a functioning society and assigns the most excrutiating punishment with no parole, no consideration, no chance to redeem oneself. "Choice 1" Jesus? Yes = heaven. "Choice 2" Jesus? No = hell. A hell far worse than any human jail can be.. Nonbelievers get to writhe in agony for eternity. What a logical/rational use of "repercussions." Eternal time-out engulfed in flames. No rehabilitation whatsoever. That seems evil to me.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Ethics/morals do not come from God. Our estimation of what's wrong and right has evolved over time as we've become more civilized. Were ALL humans running free in unrestrained packs of murdering, thieving rapists and pillagers before God said to "knock it off?" Although the Old Testament God seemed squeamish about humans killing, that "don't kill" admonition withered in the face of his contradictory commands to murder neighboring tribes (and enjoy their women folk).
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit Fulfilling is the way I would describe salvation, unequivocal. It is the only thing that makes sense. If you say Christianity is not logical you havent checked your facts. Naturalism can Never explain existence. Other religions dont make logical sense as well as their being unverifiable as opposed to true Christianity which explains itself by the fact that can be verified by a background check that can only be explained by its truth.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@1holysheit All other religions take a lot more faith than Christianity. In my opinion Christianity is the only logical choice other than atheism but only because we dont have all of the scientific evidence for naturalism meaning its possible but undiscovered which again makes Christianity the only choice untill all of the evidence is in. And even when (and if) we find out that naturalsim is at all possible (which it currently isnt) it still doent mean it actually happened that way.
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 To me, these basic tenets (esp. of Christianity) don't make logical sense. Rather, they seem like base, capricious, vengeful, nasty human qualities projected onto a supernatural being. Continuing with the parent analogy, most human parents aren't as nasty to their disobedient children as God. If the Daddy in my example actually took Billy out back and roasted him in the firepit for disobedience, we'd have him locked up as a sociopathic murderer.
1holysheit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Emrys93 To quote your earlier post: "I would say that that purpose is so that we would love him because we want to, not because we have to. Lets face it, loving someone because we have to is not love, but merely a choice based on the only alternative which is not even an alternative, not even a choice. Its just a fact, a reality. Must love. If that were the case the universe would not exist. Just heaven, and a heaven filled with mindless, unfulfilling robots." I couldn't agree more, BUT..
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 To quote your earlier post: "I would say that that purpose is so that we would love him because we want to, not because we have to. Lets face it, loving someone because we have to is not love, but merely a choice based on the only alternative which is not even an alternative, not even a choice. Its just a fact, a reality. Must love. If that were the case the universe would not exist. Just heaven, and a heaven filled with mindless, unfulfilling robots." If I believed, I would agree
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit First off I also would like to thank you for your promt responces, I enjoy a good discussion. Ok, If you cannot answer yes to the question "do you love God?", you do not love God and I dont think it matters if the reason is the fact that you dont think he exists. Thats part of the choice, choosing to believe in him and love him because you believe in him. I am curious though as to why you dont believe in God?
Emrys93 1 year ago
@Emrys93 (cont.) but your explanation makes it sounds as if free will to only love God wouldn't be free will...yes, I agree completely, in a universe-less heaven as you describe it. But we live in a universe, and, according to the bible, that necessarily introduces hell as the only alternative ("choice") to loving God while alive. That's where I got my simplistic, dichotomous examples. Isn't it that simple? And if not, why not? (I know I'm assuming your version of Christian dogma includes hell.)
1holysheit 1 year ago
@1holysheit Sorry I didnt know you werent finished. So yes your examples were perfect but we are now back at the begining, you are, by Christian standards, choosing hell. Like the boy in your example if he chose his fathers fire over the dinner. Therefore a choice. And yes all Christianity includes hell, if it doesnt it is not Christianity.
Emrys93 1 year ago
Comment removed
1holysheit 1 year ago
@Emrys93 Here's a loose parenting analogy based on the "give your kids choices" school of thought. "Now Billy, you can either eat all of this delicious meal that I've prepared for you (same meal every time, some foods that aren't Billy's favorites, some foods that Billy is repulsed by), or Daddy will show his boundless love for you by taking you out back and roasting you in the fire pit." Hmmmmm...choices, choices.
1holysheit 1 year ago
@msbarbara57 who said:"Do People actually read the Bible? B/c that is where I stopped believing and I became an atheist. It is not a movement, or I don't go to meetings. I am free to believe what I want. "
You say this as if you are surprised when you hear people STILL read the bible just because YOU didn't? If you have read it, then you would know they exist. I think this excludes you from arguing against the Bible. Now that we can assume you never read it in the first place. Have you?
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
do you by any chance think tom cruise is really, really cool?
janover73 1 year ago
@janover73 No, if you're presumptuous, I''ll say in fact, I dislike him (cruise) quite a but don't merge the two aspects of behaviors with the theo's.
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
@Ultramediacorp I was asking theoreticalBS, since he seemed to me he was making a cruise impression. I have no idea what you were talking about. Sorry
janover73 1 year ago
@janover73 well I thought that because I had a similar opinion
Ultramediacorp 1 year ago
"unnecessary suffering"
Unnecessary according to...who? You? The victim? Its relatives? What's the criteria by which the loss of a friend/relative is deemed "unnecessary"? Do you maybe know the consequences of such loss, 50 years in the future or something? Calling an action of omniscient, timeless God "unnecessary" is hilarious at best.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago
@SmokiSounds It's results based. When the results of the suffering are not valueable in some way, it is unnecessary. If this god exists and has some special long term plan whereby some greater good will come out of some suffering that our lack of omniscience prevents us from understanding, then he owes it to us to explain it if he wants us to understand and accept it. Given how he is described in the Bible, he definitely hasn't earned my trust as someone with our best interests in mind.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
@Arkalius80 lol. He doesn't own SHIT to you. It's YOU who can't understand and accept it, and what's hilarious is you bring up the Bible but clearly only read a few quotes. Because otherwise, you'd know - anything, ANYthing that happens, has a reason and a necessity. Precisely because of His omniscience, because of knowing every possible outcome of every free choice made by every human. You and I, we can't talk about "results" until we're laying on our death beds.
SmokiSounds 1 year ago