It is absolutely ridiculous to say that abortion is not murder. Of course it is. These BABIES feel pain when an abortion happens that is why they try to get away and there is a struggle. They have personalities already in the womb, and most of all they have HEART BEATS!!! How do you get more human? Good job Todd
This Brian guy is one argumentative man... seriously. The man's calmly asking you questions and you act as if he insulted your mother... geez, grow UP.
Wow why are atheists so angry if they don't believe in God? Why bother? Why not just live the only little life you have? Atheists know very well God exists it's sad they pretend not to. Please repent my atheist friends.
Show me where...not in a book in a real place...obviously layers need to be uniform around the world and they are not they are an invention...find why the layers where named and who created this fairy tale...do some digging learn something...science is practical not the reading of books or understanding of theories but finding the truth...and you have not tested any of these assumption ....so think for yourself....
@gregrutz I have been to the grand canyon there are no such layers..and I see evidence of the flood ...you can see the water marks of where the water used to be...but ...believe what you will ...find out where the layers came from do some research instead of being a regurgitating retard....
@RunColorado100 There are 44 distinct layers of differet kinds of rock in the Grand Canyon.
Are you blind and stupid?
The third layer down, the Coconino Sandstone, is wind blown deserts sands with desert fossils in it. The Redwall Limestone has slow growing corals in it.
@RunColorado100 The 'Layers' in the book is a TIME scale. The ''thickness'' of the layers is equal to the amount of time each period of lasted. You are as stupid as Hovind.
@gregrutz they are invented including the millions of years..can you tell me how they arrived at those conclusion..please give me the step by step process...don't tell there they are and they are millions and millions of years...tell that fairy tale to someone who believes in the spaghetti monster...so give me the rational please..I hope you are rational...how did they arrive at the layers and how did they figure millions of years....I m waiting...
@RunColorado100 Here is the evidence, the facts, go look. The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No bunny fossils. No dating methods used.
@gregrutz Still waiting for an explanation...lol...obviously this does not represent the layers in reality...and how did they arrive at the millions of years...and how do they know what it means that there is a layer of fossils of fish above and a layer of seashells on the bottom...how did they arrive at the conclusions...give me the reasoning behind it..please...I m waiting...
@RunColorado10 >>In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, ONLY . above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, . above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, . above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils , above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. . above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile, dinosaur and mammal fossils. . YOU CAN'T SEE A PATTERN HERE.
@gregrutz Still waiting for a rational explanation....lol..please don't point me to a book..you can simply explain it...I m waiting ...that is what I thought...lol......Horse Radish...you cant even explain...
@RunColorado100 The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon is below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?
@gregrutz The problem with time is that we cannot go back in time and be there when it started obviously...but the only thing I can say not more than 6000 years which is the age of the earth...can you entertain the possibility that those layers where a product of a world wide flood...it is more plausible that with billions of years....but that would mean you would have to accept the account of Noah's flood..
@RunColorado100 Bible packing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any. They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented and showed it was Billions of years old.
@gregrutz Not Really the position for hundreds of years was regarding the flood and the people who started pushing this like Darwin and Lyle had the minority view obviously for something to be fossilized it needs to be encapsulated without oxygen there is only one thing that can do that aflood and radiometric dating is flawed because it is based on assumptions not scientific evidence and it has been shown incredibly flawed so much for that which radiometric dating do you want to debate
@gregrutz So the earth as you stated was millions of years before radiometric dating...how did they come to this conclusion...please give me the play by play rationale which I have been asking...lol...Obviously it was invented because you cannot explain how a rational person explains this...lol..I am waiting to see how is it scientifically possible as you say without radiometric dating to arrive at millions of years...lol..this is just not scientific..you believe a fairytale..
@RunColorado100 Do you know they went looking for the deepest sediments in the Ataltic Ocean and the more they went toward the middle of the ocean the less sediment there was. Then they proved sea floor spreading and the Theory of plate tectonics and scientists know how long it takes for the continents to move. Millions of years. Look up Plate Tectonics if you want proof the earth is old.
@RunColorado100 Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. In humans, ERVs occupy about 1% of the genome. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. Proof of evolution.
@gregrutz Evolution is a Religion this is not about winning and losing...is it a football game..it is about the truth..I do not believe Religion should be taught in schools, but neither evolution...this is just a Religion with trappings of science...
@gregrutz Obviously Science is not a religion...but evolution is not science ergo ...it is a religion..you have to believe in billions of years the world is around 6000 years....
@RunColorado100 Göbekli Tepe, is a hilltop sanctuary erected on the highest point of an elongated mountain ridge some 15 km northeast of the town of Şanlıurfa, in southeastern Turkey and 500 miles away from Istanbul, Turkey. It is the most astonishing archaeological discovery in modern times and also thought to be the oldest advanced civilization on Earth. It is 12,000 years old.
@gregrutz In the Bible the word of God it can be deduced that is no more than 6000 years old...it is a faith position because no one can go back thru time...neither can you or radiometric dating, which as I said is flawed....so how do they come up with 12000 years...o wait...pull it out of a hat...lol...I believe the Bible you can see evidence of a world wide flood not of a local flood but world wide....that is why we have fossils...bones need to be closed of immediately from air
@gregrutz bones need to be closed of immediately from air..to become fossilized and the only way this can be done is thru a world wide flood...if you leave an animal in open air for a year...no bones will be left...so much for millions of years...and there are fossils of teddy bears and boots ..it only took 30 to 50 years to fossilize..so much for evolution...lol..
. Brian seems to be very uneducated when it comes to anything spiritual....I cant make a judgement towards him because the bible tells us not to judge ..but he is spiritually blind &. deaf and he does all this in ignorance so we are to pray for him...
I've just watched this debate. The Bible is true. "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God". I can't feel anything but sorrow for Brian and Kelly. They are educated fools. Hell is going to be a horrible place, with lots of time for regrets. "The rich man lifted up his eyes in hell". It's going to be a place of isolation. All of their pleas to the God they rejected... I weep for them.
@RunColorado100 It is obvious to anyone you don't have half a brain and have never opened a science book. I don't believe in evolution, I study it.
And anyone who thinks scientists are looking for a crocoduck doesn't understand evolution. Kirk is a moron. He didn't prove God like he said he would.
@gregrutz Obviously Kirk Cameron Understands it and many of us do...the problem is that there is no scientific proof...you have to believe it based on assumptions...there are no transitional species that go from one species in to another...show me one...don't tell me there are fossils showing this...if you do explain to me the process from the beginning when a fossil is found and scientifically step by step arriving at a conclusion that a piece of bone evolve...idiotic.
@gregrutz They are just names sorry ....fossils do not prove this...explain to me the process from a bone in the dirt...to evolution please...would it not be more scientific to see it live....what an idiot....
@gregrutz O wait...after millions and millions of years...have you lived millions of years and seen this...NO....so someone gives you a story ...and you believe evolution is fact...and I do not mean adaptation within species....You are not thinking...so much evolutards....
@RunColorado100 We can see the history of the earth in the geology and the fossils. People study evolution at every university in the world. People study science repeating the experiment and studying the different theories.
Not like bible study where you can't understand a fucking thing it say and need to be told.
@gregrutz If you speak to a geneticist he will tell you each species has there own DNA code and is programmed to conserve it...there is no proof of a living transitional species...obviously the crockuduck meant to show the idiotic assumptions of evolution...but atheists to this like Kirk did not know....Evidence for the flood is there and for a 6000 to 7000 earth...and don't start with radiometric dating...which is based on many assumptions and is not foolproof...
@RunColorado100 ''...there is no proof of a living transitional species..'' WTF? You are as stupid as Kirk. ALL living species ARE transitional species. A transition fossil shows species changing, like a dinosaur with feathers or a fish with a neck and legs.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old and there was no flood before radiometric dating was invented. Nice try creatard.
@gregrutz Show me a transitional species...please and a fossil does not prove this...if it does please explain how a bone in found in the dirt becomes evolved...isn't dead...o wait millions of years...lol..Show me a living transitional species...o wait all species are transitional...but can you show me one transitional species...you are evolutionidiot....
@RunColorado100 I don't ''believe'' in evolution, it has been proven. And why don't you know what science is? Home schooled? Never studied biology, a science.
Ever heard of the Science of Paleontology? They study fossils, those things you can't explain and prove your religion wrong.
@gregrutz for something to be proven scientifically it has to be able to be repeated and proved over and over....going back in time millions of years cannot be done...and don't bring radiometric dating ....it has to many flaws and assumptions...evolution is not what we see around us...but a world after a world wide flood....
@gregrutz Those layers where invented you need to read the history and where they came from...the layers idiot do not reflect any layers in the real world...show me proof...I can show you proof of threes buried standing up thru 5 supposed layers...if a layer takes millions of years how do you explain that...you are a monkey brain any one knows that anything if not buried will decompose...the layers you see on a biology book are a fairytale...
@RunColorado100 I am arguing with a fucking idiot. You don't know what a fossils is. A teddy bear with calcite deposits is not a fossil dummy.
'' threes buried standing up thru 5 supposed layers...if a layer takes millions of years how do you explain that'' LAYERS DON'T ALWAYS TAKE MILLIONS OF YEARS dip shit.
Fossils are found in tar pits and desert sands too. There was no flood, no evidence at all.
@gregrutz Obviously you are not right...but you cannot prove scientifically evolution is correct...because it does not exist..there is no scientific proof...
@gregrutz Proven no one has...sorry ...I have read all evolutionist books it is a faith position...you have to believe it...it does sound scientific ...but once you analyze and verify the info..there is nothing there...Any radiometric dating is flawed...which one do you want to start with...and please name the assumptions...behind it..lol...any scientist knows radiometric dating...is horse radish..lol..
@lovincustomerservice "Educated fool" wow, so your an "uneducated genius?" makes total sense just like god does lol, if u "beleive" gods real, good for u, if u "tell" me gods real, ur lying to urself, we can all beleive what we want before we die, religion gave me fairy tales and science gave me common sense and logic, there are going to be good and bad in both, we get why u hang onto the old ways and thats fine, but if u bad christians get loud, bad atheists will get loud to balance them
Todd Friel is the most ungracious , deliberately antagonising, nasty piece of work in the Reformed movement. I can't blame anyone for getting angry with him. I
Even if I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending" / "sharing", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements to logically sway Todd himself.
I thought that the point was to get the message of truth ACROSS.
If I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements to Todd.
I thought that the point was to get the message of truth ACROSS.
If I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements to Todd.
If I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements.
I am so glad that this video is still up, so that I can see that the method of Brian Sapient is lacking to express true the true logic of Christianity and life to Todd. Christianity needs to get off of a false high horse, and stand on the realities (ONLY) of all life (which God can never betray).
ok a week ago I posted the story of a woman who had died because she was denied an abortion but was unable to find an example of it happening in America.
Here is how it could happen
View Protect life act explained by The Young Turks
Posted 15th of october 2011
Brian may have been wrong. Watch the video and lets hope he is not prophetic.
Todd The Wretched Friel is a joke. He's a comedian on the family network, only his jokes aren't funny. Todd Wretched shows videos of people that believe in the same god he does, &Todds job as a comedian is to say they are not true christians? Personally as an Atheist i don't care which is the better christian or which is not! i look at both Todd and his religious opponents like the opium of our society & a disgrace to human dignity.Todd Wretched can thank beautiful America for his silly show.
I watched this debate and, although my faith in God is not contingent on these guys' ability to defend the Truth, they (Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort) got slaughtered by the atheists.
These hate-filled types are always so "logical" in their "reason!" Hilarious how rarely they have an original argument. Its like they've been mass-produced in a factory, implanted with a chip programmed by Hitchens & Dawkins, with a touch of Sagan and a bit of Ehrman. Their hate betrays them.
In answer to Todds challenge to name a woman who died due to being denied an abortion.
Martha Solay when Martha was two months pregnant with Daniela, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. Doctors in her home city of Pereira withheld radiation treatment that could have cured her because it would have terminated the fetus, a procedure that was illegal, with no exceptions. Martha was forced to wait out the pregnancy, giving her cancer time to become terminal.
Its typical, people cant have a functional debate. When someone is questioned on a stance thy have, they immediately get angry, and start name calling. Leave emotion out of it and give the facts for your posistion. Have a real conversation with mutual respect.
why are people calling this guy a clown? i have unsaved friends that think like this and I pray for them as much as I can...I really pray that every word this guy heard about the gospel was pressed deeply upon his heart by the holy spirit. This isn't about owning anyone or getting a one up..this is about this man's SOUL. He'll one day stand before his creator and I pray he will hear "welcome my child" and not "depart from me"!
There is no manmade global.warming. Just another lie by fanatics to destroy freedom and enslave a once free people. Maybe you should take a 9th science. class.
@TheJackiemickie uhhh, i recall learning about climate change, greenhouse gases, and manmade global warming. did you go to catholic school by any chance?
Never get emotional when you want to win an argument. When the interviewer told him that he should have evidence if he's going to make a claim, he should have turned that around on the interviewer. What evidence is there for Jesus or God? Religion is poisoning our society in so many different ways. It's stifling medical research, it's attacking the educational system, and it's influencing our politics.
Continued forcing Americans to buy something against their will if that doesn't viloate the Constitution I don't know what does. Left wingers use the manmade global warming lie to control our every move, beat the working man in the ground with higher electric bills, higher gas, higher food, higher clothes, higher everything to fight something that doesn' t exsist. So when liberals call themselves pro choice that is a lie. They are pro choice onhavingabortionsandantichoiceoneverythingelse.
Women are having their right to have an abortion taken away my ass. I'm glad these left wing hypocrites are pro choice and pro freedom on abortion because they aren't pro choice and pro freedom on anything else ie. Attacks on the Second Amendment, Attacks on the personal freedom to smoke, not to wear seatbelts, it's even getting so bad that these nuts are even trying to tell people what they can and cannot eat. The personal mandate of Obamacare forcing Americans to buy something against Contin
Brian, u hate Jesus.. period.. just because he died on a cross for you, doesn't mean u should justify how u don hate him even though u don believe in him.. u don hate the idea of Jesus? then why are you doing this?
We Christians should be grateful Brian Sapient isn't a believer--if he were a believer, he'd be such an obnoxious priest that he'd turn countless people off Christianity!
He got owned? By who, the bumbling idiot who made a fecetious comment about how he couldn't name people at risk of dying from pregnancy? I couldn't name many of those who died in the holocaust but I know it happened. The only one that got owned here is that religious fundamentalist dimwit.
@Doniedaff LOL... when he asked for a name he didn't meant that you require a specific name to know something is true. He meant that there is not even a single case like the one Brian is claming.
@Doniedaff LOL... when he asked for a name he didn't meant that you require a specific name to know something is true. He meant that there is not even a single case like the one Brian is claming.
im a Christian and I think 'thewayofthe master' Todd and Ray Comfort all come off as total *ss holes. the only one who comes off with as having a pure spirit is Kirk Cameron. i don't know why they think evangelism and apologetics gives them the right to be total (beep)'s. /?? can someone answer me that?
3. To say that you get your morals from your god is so weak. Do you really think intelligent individuals like you and I, need an external entity to define what is right and wrong for us. Our morality comes from the human instinct to survive and our ability to emotionally connect with other people. Human care about other people and value their own life. That is why they instinctively know not to kill, steal, cheat on a spouse, etc..
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Even if I granted everything you said, that still wouldn't justify enforcing your morals on others when they wrong you. If morality isn't objective, what right do you have to say stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, or even that God is wrong for doing things you deem immoral in the bible? What is "wrong" on your view? How do you define it?
1. Abiogenesis isn't improbable, it's chemistry at its most basic level
2. I never said evolution contradicts the existence of a god, it makes it unnecessary.
3. I have no evidence showing that I possess a magical sandwich that can cure cancer. Does that then make my claim to possess such a sandwich rational on the basis that it hasn't been disproved? Absence of evidence is a valid argument.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 1. It has NEVER been reproduced in a lab, so it obviously isn't basic.
2. You admit that it doesn't disprove God. Bravo!
3. Wouldn't the sandwich serve as the evidence? Besides, the abscence of evidence only serves as evidence of abscence it we should expect to see more evidence of something were it to exist. I don't think you would believe in God even if the evidence were right in from of your eyes. You'd probably say you were seeing things!
@tynytian 1. You asked for arguments for atheism. Evolution doesn't straight-up disprove the existence of god however it does make god unnecessary.
2. If you could't see the sandwich or interact with it in any way, how could the sandwich serve as evidence for my case. That is ridiculous.
3. If i saw God I would have evidence to believe. Right now there is not a shred of evidence. If he is an all-powerful god that really cared about my salvation, why doesn't he just come down and reveal himself
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 1. so it doesn't count as evidence against Him. Stop using it already.
2. Now you're making up premises not previously stated. You didn't say before that it was an immaterial sandwich (an idea that is just ridiculous on it's own merits). While a mind is immaterial, a sandwich isn't. It relies on spacetime for its existence.
3. Like I said before, even if God appeared before you right now, you'd probably shrug it off as a hallucination. God doesn't show himself to the proud.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Because the bible says He gives grace to the humble. Only if you honestly seek after God with the right motives (forgiveness and salvation) will he reveal himself to you.
@tynytian But you see, doesn't that seem way too convenient? The only way to know God's existence for sure is to die, thus never being able to pass on the information to the living. Plus you are using the sacred text to back up your argument. how can I argue with that? It is Church doctrine, not fact.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o As a Christian, I believe that we can know God exists in this life by coming to him with a broken spirit and begging him to fix it. That's how I came to Christ, and I had an genuine religious experience in which I clearly sensed the presence of God. That experience led to a conviction of sin and a strong belief that the bible is true. So when I use the bible like that, I'm just stating my belief, not a logical argument. You asked me how I know God shows himself to the humble.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o You can know it by humbling yourself to God, seeking him with sincerity and love. Unless you're willing to approach God on His terms instead of yours, you will not find Him.
@tynytian One quick question of your god's morals. If one of your loved family members disobeyed you, would you send them to the depths of hell to be tortured and punished for eternity? I know for myself, there is nothing that anyone can do, let alone a loved one, that would make we do that to them. Well that is what your morally perfect god does and it is a pretty horrible thought. Please answer this question.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o I wouldn't send them, but then I'm not qualified to judge in such a way. I believe only God in His omniscience can truly judge the sins of the world. As Jesus said, it's not my place to judge. The sin of rejecting God, however, is one that carries an infinite punishment. I've found that the only people who find the thought of Hell distasteful are the one's who are condemned already by God's standard. Fortunately Jesus died so we can be forgiven.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 1. I'm undecided on evolution. I admit there is substantial evidence for micro-evolution, but that it is yet to be seen whether Darwinian machanisms can be extrapolated back to explain common descent. The fossil record, from what I've seen, seems to have lots of leaves and no branches to connect them all.
2. I believe that Big Bang Cosmology is consistent with the Genesis account because the six days mentioned were obviously figurative and not to be taken literally.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 3. I hold to a form of Divine Command Theory in which God's moral law is both intuitively known by humans (we naturally know right from wrong because God design us that way) and specifically revealed in the bible. What constitutes "good" is the commands which flow out of God's necessarily moral nature. It is impossible for God to, say, make murder good without a morally sound reason (judgement of Canaan comes to mind) because his maximal greatness entails moral perfection.
@tynytian To me, it doesn't seem like you are undecided on evolution. It seems like you believe in the creation of humans by God. Humans evolved from a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago; They were not humans. It is the belief that only humans have been given the gift of morality. By that definition you are saying that at some point God choose to give humans morality as they were previously not human. This contradicts the notion that he created us initially with moral guidelines.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Can you prove the evolution of human beings with a fossil that isn't a proven hoax? I'm sorry but the fossil evidence does not justify such a leap as to say that humans evolved from an ape-human intermediate.
@tynytian Look at autralopithecus afarensis and australopithecus africanis. Transitional fossils that show changes between typical ape pelvis at the time and that of modern humans. And you know who prove the "hoaxes" wrong. Scientists using the scientific method. find evidence and test its reliability and validity.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o To me, the bones of a dead ape don't prove that we evolved from them, similar pelvis or not. I appreciate the scientific method just as much as the next guy, but I cannot make such a logical jump as (Ape skeleton has human-like pelvis) --> (human's evolved from said ape). Perhaps if evolution had been observed in a lab setting with, say, bacteria, then it might seem more credible.
Ok, you are definitely a creationist. Honestly I think it is great that you are in a good place in your life spiritually. I like you, you put forward good arguments (as in well constructed, not correct) and are passionate about your beliefs. But as an atheist, I cannot argue with a creationist. It would be like a geographer arguing with a flat-Earther. Good luck with your life, live a good one because it is the only one you're definitely going to get.
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Thanks for the good will and the understanding. I just don't have the same faith that atheists do to believe in things like abiogenesis and evolution, but if that's where the evidence is leading you, more power to you. The only thing I contest is the smug arrogance that I get from people who even admit that they themselves can't prove their own convictions. I've yet to hear a logical atheistic argument.
@backwoodsninja It doesn't follow logically from a lack of evidence that something doesn't exist. One must give a positive argument against something's existence. Otherwise, it still could be the case that such a thing does exist after all.
@tynytian Of course. There are many things that could possibly exist. I mean, technically anything you can imagine could possibly exist somewhere, but without evidence to support the claim, I'm justified in rejecting the claim.
@backwoodsninja I agree that, were one to reject any and all alleged evidence for the existence of God, one could FEEL justified in rejecting belief in God. That being said, whether one believes in God or not has nothing to do with whether or not He actually exists.
@backwoodsninja That's fine with me. All I ask is, assuming you have no valid argument against God's existence, that you keep in mind that your skepticism is based on a presupposition and not reason and evidence. Once you realize this, you will see how what you believe is in fact the kind of blind faith for which atheists often ridicule Christians.
@tynytian The only time any believer invites ridicule from me is when they assert knowledge that they do not have. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You can believe it all day. I have no problem with that. But do not say that you KNOW there is a god or that you know something about the state of my soul.
@backwoodsninja Wow, an empiricist, eh? Tell me, how can you prove that your five senses are working properly, without which you can apparently know nothing? The trick is not to use sensory experience as the evidence for the senses, which would clearly beg the question. The fact of the matter is that we both presuppose things like the reliability of our senses, but while I can account for it, you simply take it for granted.
@tynytian Actually it has nothing to do with faith. My senses have proven to be reliable. Now, if I started to see flying turtles that no one else could see, then I would think that perhaps I am mistaken or hallucinating.
@tynytian I'll grant you that for the sake of simlicity. I must rely upon my five senses because I have no alternative. My five senses are the only tools I have with which to experience the world. If you want to call that faith, go right ahead. I call it nature, because I have no choice but to work with what I have.
@tynytian I just did. I trust my senses because I have no other option. If I didn't trust my senses, then I would be unable to function in this world. I trust my senses because they work. If my senses were deceiving me, I'd be dead or locked up for being insane.
@backwoodsninja I can claim to know that God exists based on my experience of the Holy Spirit, just as much as an atheist can claim to know that He doesn't exist without a scrap of evidence and argument to support such a claim. Since I cannot "prove" my experience to you, if I were to follow your logic then it would also be true that you cannot disprove God through your senses since lack of evidence proves nothing. At best you could claim agnosticism, as I use to, but then you'd KNOW nothing.
@tynytian Depending on your experience, you may be justified in believing, but I would not be justified in believing based on your experience, which would be second-hand to me. Agnosticism and gnosticism refer to knowledge. Atheism and theism refer to belief. I do not claim absolute knowledge. You do. But if the only evidence you have for your knowledge is your personal subjective experience, then it is an unsubstantiated claim.
@backwoodsninja Evidence, whatever form it takes, can substantiate my claim. What all the evidence in the world cannot do is convince those who refuse to believe what the evidence clearly says.
Separating belief from knowledge is a distinction without a difference. Both believing and knowing are to regard something as true. Therefore, to say that you don't believe in God just IS to know He doesn't exist. Redefining yourself out of the argument won't work, as we both makes knowledge claims.
@tynytian Your experience could be evidence, but only to you. Your experience is subjective and cannot be demonstrated to an outsider. I could tell you that I have a pet dragon. I think it's a safe bet that you would not believe me unless I could actually show you the dragon. Can you prove 100% that I don't have a dragon? No. But you can safely assume that I'm full of shit until you see evidence to the contrary.
@backwoodsninja I never said that my experience would convince you, and until you prove my experience of God is delusory, you cannot prove that it's subjective. For all you know, it could be objective, but since you cannot observe it you can only assume it's subjectivity.
@backwoodsninja You seem to treat the term subjective as if it meant unreal or contrived, but the experience I've had is veritical to me. You cannot test it, so like a true empiricist you reject it as meaningless. On that basis, I could just as easily reject any claim you make as you cannot justify the five senses with which you supposedly know all that you know.
@backwoodsninja I am in no way an agnostic, because I KNOW that God exists. What I was saying before is that knowing something and believing it are the same thing. What exactly is the difference between saying "I know fire is hot" and "I believe fire is hot"? You don't need proof of something in order to believe it.
@tynytian Apparently, you don't need proof, because you have none. The difference between belief and knowledge is that knowledge can be tested and verified.
@backwoodsninja What your talking about is evidence. Evidence can be tested and verified, but the knowledge of evidence is immaterial and cannot be tested, just like the belief that your five senses are working properly. You can't prove that anymore than I can prove God.
@tynytian You KNOW God exists? Okay, so back that claim up with evidence. If you don't have evidence, then it's just a bald assertion and is meaningless.
@backwoodsninja First off, coming from the guy who can't prove atheism, why should I be the only one to prove anything? Second off, I gave you my evidence, which you said was subjective (which as far as I can tell you take to mean "unreal and meaningless"). Thirdly, you don't need evidence to know something to be true (like your sensory input). Fourthly, it's very insulting to me when you call my beliefs meaningless, as my life has been completely changed by them.
@tynytian I did not mean to imply that subjective experience is unreal, but that it is subjective to you and therefore useful only to you. Please do pray that God reveals himself to the rest of us in a way that would convince us all.
he kinda makes atheist look bad. but the man asking questions wont let him talk AND stupid questions
EvAnAlMiGhTy1995 3 days ago in playlist More videos from thewayofthemaster
This has been flagged as spam show
It is absolutely ridiculous to say that abortion is not murder. Of course it is. These BABIES feel pain when an abortion happens that is why they try to get away and there is a struggle. They have personalities already in the womb, and most of all they have HEART BEATS!!! How do you get more human? Good job Todd
RevJhow12 4 days ago
This Brian guy is one argumentative man... seriously. The man's calmly asking you questions and you act as if he insulted your mother... geez, grow UP.
NJDominicana246 6 days ago
Wow why are atheists so angry if they don't believe in God? Why bother? Why not just live the only little life you have? Atheists know very well God exists it's sad they pretend not to. Please repent my atheist friends.
mamainmancj 1 week ago
Wow... what a toad. At first, I thought Brian was being pretty reasonable but he really spiraled in the end.
eternalwolf777 1 week ago
Oldest text of Hebrew Bible dating from the 7th.century BCE.
watch?v=tCDKPB-GjAI
gregrutz 1 week ago
This guy is so worried about women...lol..What?
RunColorado100 1 week ago
Brian is an idiot...he cannot back anything up...and brings up straw man...lol..
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Here is the evidence, the facts, go look.
The fossils are layered like this:
In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils
and dinosaurs.
No bunny fossils are found in any of these layers.
No dating method used
gregrutz 1 week ago
Show me where...not in a book in a real place...obviously layers need to be uniform around the world and they are not they are an invention...find why the layers where named and who created this fairy tale...do some digging learn something...science is practical not the reading of books or understanding of theories but finding the truth...and you have not tested any of these assumption ....so think for yourself....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Go to the Grand Canyon and study the layers.
Why do layers need to be uniform? If there was a global flood they would be uniform but they are not.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz I have been to the grand canyon there are no such layers..and I see evidence of the flood ...you can see the water marks of where the water used to be...but ...believe what you will ...find out where the layers came from do some research instead of being a regurgitating retard....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 There are 44 distinct layers of differet kinds of rock in the Grand Canyon.
Are you blind and stupid?
The third layer down, the Coconino Sandstone, is wind blown deserts sands with desert fossils in it. The Redwall Limestone has slow growing corals in it.
NOT from a flood.
READ a GEOLOGY BOOK dummy.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz I did not say there are no layers...just that the layers do not follow the book..what an idiot......
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 The 'Layers' in the book is a TIME scale. The ''thickness'' of the layers is equal to the amount of time each period of lasted. You are as stupid as Hovind.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz they are invented including the millions of years..can you tell me how they arrived at those conclusion..please give me the step by step process...don't tell there they are and they are millions and millions of years...tell that fairy tale to someone who believes in the spaghetti monster...so give me the rational please..I hope you are rational...how did they arrive at the layers and how did they figure millions of years....I m waiting...
RunColorado100 1 week ago
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Still waiting for an explanation...lol...obviously this does not represent the layers in reality...and how did they arrive at the millions of years...and how do they know what it means that there is a layer of fossils of fish above and a layer of seashells on the bottom...how did they arrive at the conclusions...give me the reasoning behind it..please...I m waiting...
RunColorado100 1 week ago
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Still waiting for a rational explanation....lol..please don't point me to a book..you can simply explain it...I m waiting ...that is what I thought...lol......Horse Radish...you cant even explain...
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 The ‘Super Group’ of rocks in the Grand Canyon is below the level layers at the east end. These layers were laid down level, block faulted into mountains, worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over the basement layers. Then another 5000 feet of sediments was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Finally water flowing down hill cut the canyon. How long do you think this took?
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz The problem with time is that we cannot go back in time and be there when it started obviously...but the only thing I can say not more than 6000 years which is the age of the earth...can you entertain the possibility that those layers where a product of a world wide flood...it is more plausible that with billions of years....but that would mean you would have to accept the account of Noah's flood..
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Bible packing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any. They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented and showed it was Billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Not Really the position for hundreds of years was regarding the flood and the people who started pushing this like Darwin and Lyle had the minority view obviously for something to be fossilized it needs to be encapsulated without oxygen there is only one thing that can do that aflood and radiometric dating is flawed because it is based on assumptions not scientific evidence and it has been shown incredibly flawed so much for that which radiometric dating do you want to debate
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 I told you that geology proves the earth is old. They knew it was old before radiometric dating was invented.
Fossils form in tar pits and desert sands and lake bottoms and river floods.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz So the earth as you stated was millions of years before radiometric dating...how did they come to this conclusion...please give me the play by play rationale which I have been asking...lol...Obviously it was invented because you cannot explain how a rational person explains this...lol..I am waiting to see how is it scientifically possible as you say without radiometric dating to arrive at millions of years...lol..this is just not scientific..you believe a fairytale..
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Do you know they went looking for the deepest sediments in the Ataltic Ocean and the more they went toward the middle of the ocean the less sediment there was. Then they proved sea floor spreading and the Theory of plate tectonics and scientists know how long it takes for the continents to move. Millions of years. Look up Plate Tectonics if you want proof the earth is old.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. In humans, ERVs occupy about 1% of the genome. There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans. Proof of evolution.
gregrutz 1 week ago
Religion sucks !
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
Kir Cameron won the debate...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Evolution is taught a fact, prayer is banned in schools. Who won?
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Evolution is a Religion this is not about winning and losing...is it a football game..it is about the truth..I do not believe Religion should be taught in schools, but neither evolution...this is just a Religion with trappings of science...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 Religion is defined as a dogma and rituals that centers around the belief in the supernatural, a deity or both.
Science does not use the supernatural or a deity.
Therefore, logic follows> this might be new to you, Science is not a Religion.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Obviously Science is not a religion...but evolution is not science ergo ...it is a religion..you have to believe in billions of years the world is around 6000 years....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Göbekli Tepe, is a hilltop sanctuary erected on the highest point of an elongated mountain ridge some 15 km northeast of the town of Şanlıurfa, in southeastern Turkey and 500 miles away from Istanbul, Turkey. It is the most astonishing archaeological discovery in modern times and also thought to be the oldest advanced civilization on Earth. It is 12,000 years old.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz In the Bible the word of God it can be deduced that is no more than 6000 years old...it is a faith position because no one can go back thru time...neither can you or radiometric dating, which as I said is flawed....so how do they come up with 12000 years...o wait...pull it out of a hat...lol...I believe the Bible you can see evidence of a world wide flood not of a local flood but world wide....that is why we have fossils...bones need to be closed of immediately from air
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Name the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it. I will wait.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz bones need to be closed of immediately from air..to become fossilized and the only way this can be done is thru a world wide flood...if you leave an animal in open air for a year...no bones will be left...so much for millions of years...and there are fossils of teddy bears and boots ..it only took 30 to 50 years to fossilize..so much for evolution...lol..
RunColorado100 1 week ago
Wow Brian could not answer the questions...lol..wow....
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
2 points for Todd...again
Tumenihobbies 2 weeks ago
Todd you basically shut him down
terrydfree 1 month ago
@terrydfree The sad thing about this is that Jesus never shut any "sinner" down. He loved them to God. Jesus didn't fight to prove his point
Yourbiggestfan77 1 week ago
And this vid do have comments enabled, pathetic lol hey banana man, still looking for the banana designer? lol
menriquex 1 month ago in playlist kirk cameron rational response squad debate
thats a funny hater lol
javierelbueno 1 month ago
. Brian seems to be very uneducated when it comes to anything spiritual....I cant make a judgement towards him because the bible tells us not to judge ..but he is spiritually blind &. deaf and he does all this in ignorance so we are to pray for him...
chasinherhorse 2 months ago in playlist wretched tv
Fraud?
Atonecc 2 months ago
He made an assertion, based on a theory, and he can't state a fact to save his argument.....lol
TheSupermom0206 2 months ago
I've just watched this debate. The Bible is true. "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God". I can't feel anything but sorrow for Brian and Kelly. They are educated fools. Hell is going to be a horrible place, with lots of time for regrets. "The rich man lifted up his eyes in hell". It's going to be a place of isolation. All of their pleas to the God they rejected... I weep for them.
lovincustomerservice 2 months ago
@lovincustomerservice Does the bible say there was a global flood? Then it is wrong.
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz Why? It is obvious with someone with half a brain there was a flood...except...you believe in evolution....
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 It is obvious to anyone you don't have half a brain and have never opened a science book. I don't believe in evolution, I study it.
And anyone who thinks scientists are looking for a crocoduck doesn't understand evolution. Kirk is a moron. He didn't prove God like he said he would.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Obviously Kirk Cameron Understands it and many of us do...the problem is that there is no scientific proof...you have to believe it based on assumptions...there are no transitional species that go from one species in to another...show me one...don't tell me there are fossils showing this...if you do explain to me the process from the beginning when a fossil is found and scientifically step by step arriving at a conclusion that a piece of bone evolve...idiotic.
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 ''there are no transitional species...show me one''
Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis.
NEED MORE EVIDENCE ?
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz They are just names sorry ....fossils do not prove this...explain to me the process from a bone in the dirt...to evolution please...would it not be more scientific to see it live....what an idiot....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 You ask for fossils that show transitional features, I named them.
Sorry if you are too stupid to understand.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz O wait...after millions and millions of years...have you lived millions of years and seen this...NO....so someone gives you a story ...and you believe evolution is fact...and I do not mean adaptation within species....You are not thinking...so much evolutards....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 We can see the history of the earth in the geology and the fossils. People study evolution at every university in the world. People study science repeating the experiment and studying the different theories.
Not like bible study where you can't understand a fucking thing it say and need to be told.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz If you speak to a geneticist he will tell you each species has there own DNA code and is programmed to conserve it...there is no proof of a living transitional species...obviously the crockuduck meant to show the idiotic assumptions of evolution...but atheists to this like Kirk did not know....Evidence for the flood is there and for a 6000 to 7000 earth...and don't start with radiometric dating...which is based on many assumptions and is not foolproof...
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 ''...there is no proof of a living transitional species..'' WTF? You are as stupid as Kirk. ALL living species ARE transitional species. A transition fossil shows species changing, like a dinosaur with feathers or a fish with a neck and legs.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old and there was no flood before radiometric dating was invented. Nice try creatard.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Show me a transitional species...please and a fossil does not prove this...if it does please explain how a bone in found in the dirt becomes evolved...isn't dead...o wait millions of years...lol..Show me a living transitional species...o wait all species are transitional...but can you show me one transitional species...you are evolutionidiot....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@gregrutz if you want to believe evolution its your choice...but don't say its science....
RunColorado100 2 weeks ago
@RunColorado100 I don't ''believe'' in evolution, it has been proven. And why don't you know what science is? Home schooled? Never studied biology, a science.
Ever heard of the Science of Paleontology? They study fossils, those things you can't explain and prove your religion wrong.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz for something to be proven scientifically it has to be able to be repeated and proved over and over....going back in time millions of years cannot be done...and don't bring radiometric dating ....it has to many flaws and assumptions...evolution is not what we see around us...but a world after a world wide flood....
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Read a Geology book. Floods don't make what we find in nature, distinct layers of different kinds of rocks in random order.
Floods don't sort fossils.
Floods don't make coral reefs, ash layers or sandstone from wind blown deserts sands.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old and there was no flood over 200 years ago, long before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Those layers where invented you need to read the history and where they came from...the layers idiot do not reflect any layers in the real world...show me proof...I can show you proof of threes buried standing up thru 5 supposed layers...if a layer takes millions of years how do you explain that...you are a monkey brain any one knows that anything if not buried will decompose...the layers you see on a biology book are a fairytale...
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 I am arguing with a fucking idiot. You don't know what a fossils is. A teddy bear with calcite deposits is not a fossil dummy.
'' threes buried standing up thru 5 supposed layers...if a layer takes millions of years how do you explain that'' LAYERS DON'T ALWAYS TAKE MILLIONS OF YEARS dip shit.
Fossils are found in tar pits and desert sands too. There was no flood, no evidence at all.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Obviously you are not right...but you cannot prove scientifically evolution is correct...because it does not exist..there is no scientific proof...
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 Evolution was proven 150 years ago, try and keep up.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Proven no one has...sorry ...I have read all evolutionist books it is a faith position...you have to believe it...it does sound scientific ...but once you analyze and verify the info..there is nothing there...Any radiometric dating is flawed...which one do you want to start with...and please name the assumptions...behind it..lol...any scientist knows radiometric dating...is horse radish..lol..
RunColorado100 1 week ago
@RunColorado100 What is an ''evolutionist'' book? Did you study the fossils, the info.?
Evolution was accepted 150 years ago, radiometric dating was invented in 1943.
Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old and there was no flood over 200 years ago.
You don't need realigion or faith to know evoltion is the best theory to explain how life changed on earth. You just deny the fossil record.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@lovincustomerservice "Educated fool" wow, so your an "uneducated genius?" makes total sense just like god does lol, if u "beleive" gods real, good for u, if u "tell" me gods real, ur lying to urself, we can all beleive what we want before we die, religion gave me fairy tales and science gave me common sense and logic, there are going to be good and bad in both, we get why u hang onto the old ways and thats fine, but if u bad christians get loud, bad atheists will get loud to balance them
robbin420z 1 month ago
Todd Friel is the most ungracious , deliberately antagonising, nasty piece of work in the Reformed movement. I can't blame anyone for getting angry with him. I
brendos444 2 months ago
Even if I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending" / "sharing", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements to logically sway Todd himself.
I thought that the point was to get the message of truth ACROSS.
JAWdog777 3 months ago
If I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements to Todd.
I thought that the point was to get the message of truth ACROSS.
JAWdog777 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements to Todd.
JAWdog777 3 months ago
If I was a Christian who was unsure of the issue stances that Brian was so-called "defending", I still would not be convinced. Todd has total right to disagree with Brian, especially BECAUSE Brian presented no fully-logical major statements.
JAWdog777 3 months ago
I am so glad that this video is still up, so that I can see that the method of Brian Sapient is lacking to express true the true logic of Christianity and life to Todd. Christianity needs to get off of a false high horse, and stand on the realities (ONLY) of all life (which God can never betray).
JAWdog777 3 months ago
Did he just say he was an agnostic when it comes to the flying spaghetti monster? lol wtf?
VitalSigns1 3 months ago
ok a week ago I posted the story of a woman who had died because she was denied an abortion but was unable to find an example of it happening in America.
Here is how it could happen
View Protect life act explained by The Young Turks
Posted 15th of october 2011
Brian may have been wrong. Watch the video and lets hope he is not prophetic.
way2jaded1 3 months ago
Todd The Wretched Friel is a joke. He's a comedian on the family network, only his jokes aren't funny. Todd Wretched shows videos of people that believe in the same god he does, &Todds job as a comedian is to say they are not true christians? Personally as an Atheist i don't care which is the better christian or which is not! i look at both Todd and his religious opponents like the opium of our society & a disgrace to human dignity.Todd Wretched can thank beautiful America for his silly show.
a1saouse 3 months ago
How do you know when you've won the debate? When the other man attacks you personally. Point : Todd
F22Rapter2468 3 months ago
I watched this debate and, although my faith in God is not contingent on these guys' ability to defend the Truth, they (Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort) got slaughtered by the atheists.
gentleben1590 3 months ago
These hate-filled types are always so "logical" in their "reason!" Hilarious how rarely they have an original argument. Its like they've been mass-produced in a factory, implanted with a chip programmed by Hitchens & Dawkins, with a touch of Sagan and a bit of Ehrman. Their hate betrays them.
WilliamTyndale1 3 months ago
In answer to Todds challenge to name a woman who died due to being denied an abortion.
Martha Solay when Martha was two months pregnant with Daniela, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. Doctors in her home city of Pereira withheld radiation treatment that could have cured her because it would have terminated the fetus, a procedure that was illegal, with no exceptions. Martha was forced to wait out the pregnancy, giving her cancer time to become terminal.
source new internationalist magazine
way2jaded1 3 months ago
This is great, Todd really was brilliant with his questions and Brian is just a weak idiot.
bigalmahoney 4 months ago 5
Its typical, people cant have a functional debate. When someone is questioned on a stance thy have, they immediately get angry, and start name calling. Leave emotion out of it and give the facts for your posistion. Have a real conversation with mutual respect.
BVCYTRHGF 4 months ago
why are people calling this guy a clown? i have unsaved friends that think like this and I pray for them as much as I can...I really pray that every word this guy heard about the gospel was pressed deeply upon his heart by the holy spirit. This isn't about owning anyone or getting a one up..this is about this man's SOUL. He'll one day stand before his creator and I pray he will hear "welcome my child" and not "depart from me"!
stop08it 6 months ago
Brian completely destroyed this absolute clown.
TheDcac 6 months ago
@TheDcac Simply put Brian was the aggressive one here. Todd really was the real man here how he was the calm and collective one here.
George0025 4 months ago in playlist George0025's Favorited Videos
Comment removed
DonPetruccci 4 months ago
There is no manmade global.warming. Just another lie by fanatics to destroy freedom and enslave a once free people. Maybe you should take a 9th science. class.
TheJackiemickie 6 months ago
@TheJackiemickie uhhh, i recall learning about climate change, greenhouse gases, and manmade global warming. did you go to catholic school by any chance?
7thgradeviolin 5 months ago
Never get emotional when you want to win an argument. When the interviewer told him that he should have evidence if he's going to make a claim, he should have turned that around on the interviewer. What evidence is there for Jesus or God? Religion is poisoning our society in so many different ways. It's stifling medical research, it's attacking the educational system, and it's influencing our politics.
Setzer 6 months ago
Continued forcing Americans to buy something against their will if that doesn't viloate the Constitution I don't know what does. Left wingers use the manmade global warming lie to control our every move, beat the working man in the ground with higher electric bills, higher gas, higher food, higher clothes, higher everything to fight something that doesn' t exsist. So when liberals call themselves pro choice that is a lie. They are pro choice onhavingabortionsandantichoiceoneverythingelse.
TheJackiemickie 6 months ago
@TheJackiemickie Global warming is a lie? Take a 9th grade science class dude.
buttface112211 6 months ago
Women are having their right to have an abortion taken away my ass. I'm glad these left wing hypocrites are pro choice and pro freedom on abortion because they aren't pro choice and pro freedom on anything else ie. Attacks on the Second Amendment, Attacks on the personal freedom to smoke, not to wear seatbelts, it's even getting so bad that these nuts are even trying to tell people what they can and cannot eat. The personal mandate of Obamacare forcing Americans to buy something against Contin
TheJackiemickie 6 months ago
Brian, u hate Jesus.. period.. just because he died on a cross for you, doesn't mean u should justify how u don hate him even though u don believe in him.. u don hate the idea of Jesus? then why are you doing this?
archi99ful 6 months ago
did he ACTUALLY say he was an agnostic when it comes to the flying spaghetti monster?
nickallah 7 months ago
We Christians should be grateful Brian Sapient isn't a believer--if he were a believer, he'd be such an obnoxious priest that he'd turn countless people off Christianity!
jamesjeffreypaul 7 months ago
@jamesjeffreypaul i hope this is a trololololol otherwise you're a lolololol
TheDcac 6 months ago
atheist just want an excuse to saturate themselves in sexual perversity - a little dark secret of 'rational' folk.
whiteliketar 7 months ago
This Atheist just got owned so hard.
michaelmannucci 7 months ago
@michaelmannucci
He got owned? By who, the bumbling idiot who made a fecetious comment about how he couldn't name people at risk of dying from pregnancy? I couldn't name many of those who died in the holocaust but I know it happened. The only one that got owned here is that religious fundamentalist dimwit.
Doniedaff 7 months ago 3
@Doniedaff LOL... when he asked for a name he didn't meant that you require a specific name to know something is true. He meant that there is not even a single case like the one Brian is claming.
DonPetruccci 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Doniedaff LOL... when he asked for a name he didn't meant that you require a specific name to know something is true. He meant that there is not even a single case like the one Brian is claming.
DonPetruccci 4 months ago
brian sapient is a serpent
cinderella1976 8 months ago 2
im a Christian and I think 'thewayofthe master' Todd and Ray Comfort all come off as total *ss holes. the only one who comes off with as having a pure spirit is Kirk Cameron. i don't know why they think evangelism and apologetics gives them the right to be total (beep)'s. /?? can someone answer me that?
Reasonz4right 8 months ago
Todd Friel has quite the patients(=
JbottoMr 8 months ago
This Brian is LOOOONEY! Its ok he will come to know Christ!
CommonSenseNetwork 8 months ago
I love Todd Friel. :)
dougmoerhoffman 8 months ago
religious and bush lover great combination
ventura433 8 months ago
3. To say that you get your morals from your god is so weak. Do you really think intelligent individuals like you and I, need an external entity to define what is right and wrong for us. Our morality comes from the human instinct to survive and our ability to emotionally connect with other people. Human care about other people and value their own life. That is why they instinctively know not to kill, steal, cheat on a spouse, etc..
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Even if I granted everything you said, that still wouldn't justify enforcing your morals on others when they wrong you. If morality isn't objective, what right do you have to say stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, or even that God is wrong for doing things you deem immoral in the bible? What is "wrong" on your view? How do you define it?
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian But i suppose, "that is not how he works"
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
1. Abiogenesis isn't improbable, it's chemistry at its most basic level
2. I never said evolution contradicts the existence of a god, it makes it unnecessary.
3. I have no evidence showing that I possess a magical sandwich that can cure cancer. Does that then make my claim to possess such a sandwich rational on the basis that it hasn't been disproved? Absence of evidence is a valid argument.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 1. It has NEVER been reproduced in a lab, so it obviously isn't basic.
2. You admit that it doesn't disprove God. Bravo!
3. Wouldn't the sandwich serve as the evidence? Besides, the abscence of evidence only serves as evidence of abscence it we should expect to see more evidence of something were it to exist. I don't think you would believe in God even if the evidence were right in from of your eyes. You'd probably say you were seeing things!
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian 1. You asked for arguments for atheism. Evolution doesn't straight-up disprove the existence of god however it does make god unnecessary.
2. If you could't see the sandwich or interact with it in any way, how could the sandwich serve as evidence for my case. That is ridiculous.
3. If i saw God I would have evidence to believe. Right now there is not a shred of evidence. If he is an all-powerful god that really cared about my salvation, why doesn't he just come down and reveal himself
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 1. so it doesn't count as evidence against Him. Stop using it already.
2. Now you're making up premises not previously stated. You didn't say before that it was an immaterial sandwich (an idea that is just ridiculous on it's own merits). While a mind is immaterial, a sandwich isn't. It relies on spacetime for its existence.
3. Like I said before, even if God appeared before you right now, you'd probably shrug it off as a hallucination. God doesn't show himself to the proud.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian How do you know that he doesn't show himself to the proud?
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Because the bible says He gives grace to the humble. Only if you honestly seek after God with the right motives (forgiveness and salvation) will he reveal himself to you.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian But you see, doesn't that seem way too convenient? The only way to know God's existence for sure is to die, thus never being able to pass on the information to the living. Plus you are using the sacred text to back up your argument. how can I argue with that? It is Church doctrine, not fact.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o As a Christian, I believe that we can know God exists in this life by coming to him with a broken spirit and begging him to fix it. That's how I came to Christ, and I had an genuine religious experience in which I clearly sensed the presence of God. That experience led to a conviction of sin and a strong belief that the bible is true. So when I use the bible like that, I'm just stating my belief, not a logical argument. You asked me how I know God shows himself to the humble.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian You're right, I should rephrase:
How can WE know that he doesn't reveal himself to the proud.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o You can know it by humbling yourself to God, seeking him with sincerity and love. Unless you're willing to approach God on His terms instead of yours, you will not find Him.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian One quick question of your god's morals. If one of your loved family members disobeyed you, would you send them to the depths of hell to be tortured and punished for eternity? I know for myself, there is nothing that anyone can do, let alone a loved one, that would make we do that to them. Well that is what your morally perfect god does and it is a pretty horrible thought. Please answer this question.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o I wouldn't send them, but then I'm not qualified to judge in such a way. I believe only God in His omniscience can truly judge the sins of the world. As Jesus said, it's not my place to judge. The sin of rejecting God, however, is one that carries an infinite punishment. I've found that the only people who find the thought of Hell distasteful are the one's who are condemned already by God's standard. Fortunately Jesus died so we can be forgiven.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian I can see that you are an intelligent individual so I would like to clarify some things to understand your arguments further:
1. Do you believe in the process of evolution?
2. What are your thoughts on creation?
3. Where do you derive your ethics from?
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 1. I'm undecided on evolution. I admit there is substantial evidence for micro-evolution, but that it is yet to be seen whether Darwinian machanisms can be extrapolated back to explain common descent. The fossil record, from what I've seen, seems to have lots of leaves and no branches to connect them all.
2. I believe that Big Bang Cosmology is consistent with the Genesis account because the six days mentioned were obviously figurative and not to be taken literally.
tynytian 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o 3. I hold to a form of Divine Command Theory in which God's moral law is both intuitively known by humans (we naturally know right from wrong because God design us that way) and specifically revealed in the bible. What constitutes "good" is the commands which flow out of God's necessarily moral nature. It is impossible for God to, say, make murder good without a morally sound reason (judgement of Canaan comes to mind) because his maximal greatness entails moral perfection.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian To me, it doesn't seem like you are undecided on evolution. It seems like you believe in the creation of humans by God. Humans evolved from a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years ago; They were not humans. It is the belief that only humans have been given the gift of morality. By that definition you are saying that at some point God choose to give humans morality as they were previously not human. This contradicts the notion that he created us initially with moral guidelines.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Can you prove the evolution of human beings with a fossil that isn't a proven hoax? I'm sorry but the fossil evidence does not justify such a leap as to say that humans evolved from an ape-human intermediate.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian Look at autralopithecus afarensis and australopithecus africanis. Transitional fossils that show changes between typical ape pelvis at the time and that of modern humans. And you know who prove the "hoaxes" wrong. Scientists using the scientific method. find evidence and test its reliability and validity.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o To me, the bones of a dead ape don't prove that we evolved from them, similar pelvis or not. I appreciate the scientific method just as much as the next guy, but I cannot make such a logical jump as (Ape skeleton has human-like pelvis) --> (human's evolved from said ape). Perhaps if evolution had been observed in a lab setting with, say, bacteria, then it might seem more credible.
tynytian 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tynytian It has been observed in a laboratory with viruses.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@tynytian
Ok, you are definitely a creationist. Honestly I think it is great that you are in a good place in your life spiritually. I like you, you put forward good arguments (as in well constructed, not correct) and are passionate about your beliefs. But as an atheist, I cannot argue with a creationist. It would be like a geographer arguing with a flat-Earther. Good luck with your life, live a good one because it is the only one you're definitely going to get.
o0oSolidSnakeo0o 9 months ago
@o0oSolidSnakeo0o Thanks for the good will and the understanding. I just don't have the same faith that atheists do to believe in things like abiogenesis and evolution, but if that's where the evidence is leading you, more power to you. The only thing I contest is the smug arrogance that I get from people who even admit that they themselves can't prove their own convictions. I've yet to hear a logical atheistic argument.
tynytian 9 months ago
@tynytian A logical atheistic argument? Okay, let me take a shot at it. (ahem) The existence of God has not been supported with sufficient evidence.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja It doesn't follow logically from a lack of evidence that something doesn't exist. One must give a positive argument against something's existence. Otherwise, it still could be the case that such a thing does exist after all.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian Of course. There are many things that could possibly exist. I mean, technically anything you can imagine could possibly exist somewhere, but without evidence to support the claim, I'm justified in rejecting the claim.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja I agree that, were one to reject any and all alleged evidence for the existence of God, one could FEEL justified in rejecting belief in God. That being said, whether one believes in God or not has nothing to do with whether or not He actually exists.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian You're absolutely right. But until I have sufficient evidence, I am skeptical of the claim.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja That's fine with me. All I ask is, assuming you have no valid argument against God's existence, that you keep in mind that your skepticism is based on a presupposition and not reason and evidence. Once you realize this, you will see how what you believe is in fact the kind of blind faith for which atheists often ridicule Christians.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian The only time any believer invites ridicule from me is when they assert knowledge that they do not have. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You can believe it all day. I have no problem with that. But do not say that you KNOW there is a god or that you know something about the state of my soul.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja Wow, an empiricist, eh? Tell me, how can you prove that your five senses are working properly, without which you can apparently know nothing? The trick is not to use sensory experience as the evidence for the senses, which would clearly beg the question. The fact of the matter is that we both presuppose things like the reliability of our senses, but while I can account for it, you simply take it for granted.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian I trust my five senses because they are the only tools I have with which to navigate through this world.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja SO you have faith in your five senses, but you cannot justify this faith you have.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian Actually it has nothing to do with faith. My senses have proven to be reliable. Now, if I started to see flying turtles that no one else could see, then I would think that perhaps I am mistaken or hallucinating.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja Your senses only prove reliable if you already presuppose their reliability. This is a circular argument.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian I'll grant you that for the sake of simlicity. I must rely upon my five senses because I have no alternative. My five senses are the only tools I have with which to experience the world. If you want to call that faith, go right ahead. I call it nature, because I have no choice but to work with what I have.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@tynytian I just did. I trust my senses because I have no other option. If I didn't trust my senses, then I would be unable to function in this world. I trust my senses because they work. If my senses were deceiving me, I'd be dead or locked up for being insane.
backwoodsninja 5 months ago
@backwoodsninja I can claim to know that God exists based on my experience of the Holy Spirit, just as much as an atheist can claim to know that He doesn't exist without a scrap of evidence and argument to support such a claim. Since I cannot "prove" my experience to you, if I were to follow your logic then it would also be true that you cannot disprove God through your senses since lack of evidence proves nothing. At best you could claim agnosticism, as I use to, but then you'd KNOW nothing.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian Depending on your experience, you may be justified in believing, but I would not be justified in believing based on your experience, which would be second-hand to me. Agnosticism and gnosticism refer to knowledge. Atheism and theism refer to belief. I do not claim absolute knowledge. You do. But if the only evidence you have for your knowledge is your personal subjective experience, then it is an unsubstantiated claim.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja Evidence, whatever form it takes, can substantiate my claim. What all the evidence in the world cannot do is convince those who refuse to believe what the evidence clearly says.
Separating belief from knowledge is a distinction without a difference. Both believing and knowing are to regard something as true. Therefore, to say that you don't believe in God just IS to know He doesn't exist. Redefining yourself out of the argument won't work, as we both makes knowledge claims.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian Your experience could be evidence, but only to you. Your experience is subjective and cannot be demonstrated to an outsider. I could tell you that I have a pet dragon. I think it's a safe bet that you would not believe me unless I could actually show you the dragon. Can you prove 100% that I don't have a dragon? No. But you can safely assume that I'm full of shit until you see evidence to the contrary.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja I never said that my experience would convince you, and until you prove my experience of God is delusory, you cannot prove that it's subjective. For all you know, it could be objective, but since you cannot observe it you can only assume it's subjectivity.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian Yes, I can safely assume it is subjective. If you had objective evidence for god's existence, then you would be famous.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja You seem to treat the term subjective as if it meant unreal or contrived, but the experience I've had is veritical to me. You cannot test it, so like a true empiricist you reject it as meaningless. On that basis, I could just as easily reject any claim you make as you cannot justify the five senses with which you supposedly know all that you know.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian So in that case, we are both agnostics, because you can't prove your position any more than I can.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja I am in no way an agnostic, because I KNOW that God exists. What I was saying before is that knowing something and believing it are the same thing. What exactly is the difference between saying "I know fire is hot" and "I believe fire is hot"? You don't need proof of something in order to believe it.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian Apparently, you don't need proof, because you have none. The difference between belief and knowledge is that knowledge can be tested and verified.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja What your talking about is evidence. Evidence can be tested and verified, but the knowledge of evidence is immaterial and cannot be tested, just like the belief that your five senses are working properly. You can't prove that anymore than I can prove God.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian You KNOW God exists? Okay, so back that claim up with evidence. If you don't have evidence, then it's just a bald assertion and is meaningless.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago 5
@backwoodsninja First off, coming from the guy who can't prove atheism, why should I be the only one to prove anything? Second off, I gave you my evidence, which you said was subjective (which as far as I can tell you take to mean "unreal and meaningless"). Thirdly, you don't need evidence to know something to be true (like your sensory input). Fourthly, it's very insulting to me when you call my beliefs meaningless, as my life has been completely changed by them.
tynytian 8 months ago
@tynytian I did not mean to imply that subjective experience is unreal, but that it is subjective to you and therefore useful only to you. Please do pray that God reveals himself to the rest of us in a way that would convince us all.
backwoodsninja 8 months ago
@backwoodsninja look around you its all around you!
ghosthunter5656 5 months ago
@ghosthunter5656 Okay, I just looked around and I saw ... the inside of my house. Did I miss something?
backwoodsninja 5 months ago
@backwoodsninja Look at creation
RonMaday 4 months ago
@RonMaday If by 'creation' you mean the world around me, I look at it quite often, much to my own enjoyment. What's your point?
backwoodsninja 4 months ago
@backwoodsninja do you have proof he doesn't exist?
DonPetruccci 4 months ago