They are dying because they are stubborn and dont listen the Word of God throught His Holy Catholic Church. Your arguments is because you want a God to do your will. But we are called to do God's Will. You are forgetting that many does understand the Will of God. You and others judge yourselves incapable of understanding His Will because of your disobedience.
Here is a man who considers himself too good yet does not know that he is contributing to the evils of the world. God is good, it is the disobedience of man to God that leads to evil doing. He considers himself so good that he fails to recognize the evil in his heart. Putting God on trial and making a case against Him, is not going to change the Truth about God. I guess he has not considered his own fate which he has no control over it. It is called death of the body and soul.
I was raised in a devoutly Cathiloc enviroment, but in my late teens I began questioning the completely absurd shit that the theology taught. I am now a christian, but I do not believe everything that is taught by any organized religion or the bible. Why, you might ask? Because those are both created by Man, and I believe they merely set up a power structure.
@ConfuzedSushi Chairman Mao (an atheist) was responsible for killing 40-70 million people. Stalin (an atheist) was responsible for killing roughly 30 million people. Hitler (who is commonly thought to be a Christian, but is clearly not) is responsible for roughly 12 million people's deaths. Basically, add up the attrocities committed by true Christians and those committed by people who were not, and you clearly see a divide in their moralities. This is just the tip of the iceberg....
@ReachDeep1 That is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard, yet I hear it over and over from religious people. Besides there are many quotes from Hitler which suggest he was a christian. For example "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." and "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." Sound like someone who does not believe in god? No
@DTSquance It's funny how you try to condemn what I have said as idiotic when you cannot distinguish between believing in a supreme creator and Christianity. Not all people who believe in God are Christians, oh wise one. Besides, if you knew anything about real Christianity, you would know that it teaches non-violence. Now I know you just want to argue and fight with me, but you have already shown yourself to be irrelevent in any intellectual debate. Your messages will be ignored. Good day.
He must have taken his christianty from somewhere else since he killed millions of Catholics. his purpose was to wiped out jews and Catholics from the face of the earth.
@ReachDeep1 have you read some of the atrocities commanded by God in the bible, or the atrocities caused by God himself ( Noah). I wonder what kind of destruction would have occurred by the crusaders had they had modern weapons? The reason certain communists hated the church was because for centuries these churches supported the Czars/Emperors. It is Dogmas of any sort that we need to be leery of.
@adstanra That's the real trouble with organized religion; leaders tend to use it falsely to gather support for their policies and to attain their goals. For instance, the crusades were not executed by any real Christians as they were unnecessary wars of aggression. I do not fully believe anything taught by any organization/theology as they're usually infiltrated by Man's desires. I take my morality from Christianty, but I believe that Christ's true message has been skewed through time.
Learn history before you speak. The Crusaders were not the attackers, they were the defenders. They gave their lives to save Catholics from being exterminated by Muslims in the land. Catholics have been killed from the beginning, by roman pagans, hitler killed 4 millions Catholics. england revolt against the Church murdered millions of Catholics. communists almost wiped Catholics out of the land. Again, read true history or come as ignorant and foolish.
@jmir1992 Nothing is possible to know with 100% certainty. It doesn't matter. For the sake of practcality we can assert that god, leprechauns, the fly spaghetti monster and a giant teapot orbiting jupiter do not exist.
SIGNS OF JESUS COMING:DAMASCUS,SYRIA-WILL BE DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1),EGYPT(ISAIAH 19:1),ISRAEL-DIVIDED(JOEL 3:1-2),WARS-IRAN’PERSIA’(EZEKIEL 38-39,PSALMS 83), EARTHQUAKES(MATT.24),MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF ANIMALS(HOSEA 4:3),GLOBAL STRANGE SOUNDS(JEREMIAH 25:31).IT’S FRIGHTENING FOR THOSE WHO DON’T KNOW THE TRUTH.HELL IS REAL!WWIII,MEGA EARTHQUAKE?–RAPTURE (1THESSALONIANS 4:17)-ABOUT TO HAPPEN--ONLY THE HOLY ONES WILL SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.REPENT!READ THE BIBLE.GET IN THE ARK NOW!JESUS IS COMING!
Science is well ahead...any progress made by scientists is then worked into the religious acceptance....at least science is trying to uncover the truth and is honest in the process. Religion sits on its fat arrogant ass and quotes an archaic book of stories. Get real!
It is arrogant for any religion to claim they are the right one. Each religion could say the same of the other...that if people don't belong to theirs, the'd go to hell....really? How do they know? Who can say that with certainty? Were is the prove?
@avellaneh In Christianity it works this way: Everyone that go against God's Law (sin) deseirve to be punished with hell. The only exception is for the believers in Jesus Christ. Jesus pays the price that they would pay being at hell. Which basically means, we both deseirve hell, the difference between us is that I accepted the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Christians aren't better than anyone. If they were, no cross would be required.
Christianity doesn't claim to have empirical evidence of its claims. You just have to have faith in Our Blessed Lord and that's it. No need to have evidence. Some christians like Dr.Craig say they have proof of Jesus ressurrection, but it's not a very common position in christianity. About other religions, unless you have studied them, don't try to say anything you don't really know. Sadly, I see lots of fellow christians saying things about the muslim faith that are completely nonsense.
@avellaneh I am a Catholic, and the church I'm part of does NOT believe that you go to hell just because you belong to another religion. We believe in a merciful God that favors acts of unconditional love above all. Many saints have just done that, as for instance St. Beatriz da Silva and St John of God. They saw the horrible conditions the poor lived and they everything to help. Hell is reserved for those who committed a grave sin (like denying helping someone in grave danger) and didn't repent
Sam Harris always gets it right! Religion is destroying the world. It has infected the republican party. We need to move away from this make-believe. Science is always our best method for discovery. My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious Fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
think there is a simple fact that everybody seems to overlook, that thousands of people have died and come back and told us what they saw,and what they saw was incredibly similar, and some of these people were satanists and atheists,who after their experience converted. Just something to think about
Brain restarting, not that big of a deal. What we can't describe in words we use comparisons, by nature, to what is stored in our brains. And what is driven into us about our deaths? Life after is...
@soldier7of7christ7 We are all human, is it all that surprising that we experience the same visual phenomena when we die in certain ways? To explain something as being supernatural is not to explain it at all. It may be true that people physiologically "see" a white light, tunnel, etc when they die irregardless of bias but if they do there is no reason to think that there isn't a natural explanation, that is leap from vague evidence to a very specific and biased answer.
@soldier7of7christ7 Actually, what people see in these near death experiences varies wildly from person to person, and seems to be dependent upon what the person believes about an afterlife.
@soldier7of7christ7 not exactly; many people don't recall anything at all, and the experience you have seems to be contingent upon where you live and what religion you are. Buddhists in Thailand recall encounters with beings and visiting locations from Thai mythology and buddhist scriptures. And this reaffirms their faith in that religion. To say that everyone has had the same experience is fairly misleading.
@soldier7of7christ7 Science can and has explained near death experiences using physiological reasoning. When a person who is Muslim and has a NDE, they have Muslim experiences, they see Muhammad. When a Christian dies they have Christian experiences, they see Jesus. If there is a heaven which one is it like? People also supposedly experience past lives. Christianity doesn't believe in re-incarnation co how do you explain that? It is explained with biology.
@soldier7of7christ7 people that die see a bright light often times. now we could assume that it means god is real and they were going to heaven. or we could look into why else that could be. the fact is, it's caused by an altered state of perception. a chemical reaction takes place in your brain from a lack of air and stuff. they come back with parts of their brain dead and naturally, with their now almost inhuman stupidity, gravitate towards stupid beliefs.
@soldier7of7christ7; hey buddy. I had a NDE, and do you know what I did after? I wanted to know what actually happened. Turns out there is a neurological explanation for these things. What I saw and felt was my brain shutting down, keeping me alive for as long as possible. Guess what, it worked. I was atheist before, I'm atheist after. I saw no god. I saw me, and the woman I love. My favorite memory. If all of those other people would actually learn about what happened, they would act different.
@soldier7of7christ7 cerebral hypoxia. look it up. near death experiences have been safely replicated in a laboratory setting. you can also get similar results experimenting with dimethyltryptamine(DMT). "the truth will set you free, but it will piss you off". learn to let go.
@soldier7of7christ7 I was dead and came back...well, doctors brought me back. I didn't see anything. It was like sleeping without dreams and with no sense of time and space. So what do you say about that?
@soldier7of7christ7 Ah, you just refuted your own comment, if the satanists and the athiests saw the same thing as the christians then it suggests that all people have the same experience of death, not that some ppl go to heaven and some hell. Just something to think about brah.
@soldier7of7christ7 think there is a simple fact that everybody seems to overlook, that thousands of people have been abducted by aleins and come back and told us what they saw,and what they saw was incredibly similar, and some of these people were theists and atheists,who after their experience converted to alien worship. Just something to think about
@soldier7of7christ7 Here's the simple fact you're denying. None of them died. Yes, their heart stopped, their bodily functions ceased for a brief time, but none of them suffered brain death. Which is why the clinical definition of death has been revised. What they told us and what they saw were affects of a brain deprived of oxygen. The random firing of nerve impulses, which happens to every humans' brain, in the same regions at the same time. Which is why the stories are similar.
@soldier7of7christ7 There are also muslims, hindus and stories from over the centuries telling us of similar stories, but with their particular "savior" or god being on the other side...so do you mean to tell me that they all exist? Or how about the scientific explanation that tells us that at the moment of death, a large amount of endorphins are released and causes hallucinations in the forms of dreams and creates a feeling of "bliss and floating"...what seems more likely?
It's called the orbital lobe shutting down, it's one of the first parts of the brain to shut down during death. Why would it be surprising that the event was similar for everyone? We all run on similar circuitry after all.
Im sure you could take lots of accounts of peoples dreams while they are unconscious and if you pick the right dreams you could match them up to be incredibly similar. However, this does not mean they have any link with reality.
If the Christian God was here on earth a living breathing human and was allowed to dictate his terms on all peoples' in the World, he would have had murdered millions of more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Crusades combined. That would include woman and children most of all, owning slaves would be law, thought crime punishable by death, stealing would be a stoning to death. On top of that, we would have to bow down and kneel to our master, praising him in his glory. WAKE UP Theists'!
sam harris made a wisecrack about Francis Collins on the bill maher show recently. said the reason Francis Collins, who is by the way a REAL CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST, can get away with some of his stuff is because "no one challenges his bull$hit".
you all owe it to yourselves to COMPARE Francis Collin's resume' to Sam Harris'.....*snicker*
@raymondbiggers You should read Fr. Malachi Martin's Windswept House. He explain how some homossexuals were infiltrated in the Catholic Church to destroy it by inside.
Now you atheists, who claim to be "brights", can you actually study a little? I mean, go read some St.Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas, Bernard Lonergan, Eric Voegelin, Duns Scot, William of Ockham, G.K Chesterton, Mortimer J. Adler, Jacques Maritain, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger (yes, the Pope Benedict XVI). When you finish your studies we can go back and discuss for a little while ;D
@raymondbiggers We are both ignorant about these religions. The difference between us is that I don't come and lie about those religions, like you do with christianity. I will only say anything about buddhism, when I have deep knowledge about it.
But you you probably think it's wiser to come and say any shit that comes to you about subjects you have absolutely no idea.
@VieiraFi i only stated fact. never said anything else. you claim i have absolutely no idea about the priest molesting lil boys. nuns getting pregnant and killing the babies. the priest that screwed the nuns were not gay-----these are facts
Sam Harris is pathetic. How can an idiot like him destroy the Catholicism? The Roman Catholic Church gave to the world everything good that it has. I mean, how can you complain about an institution that is World's Largest Charity Institution? How can you complain about the responsible for scientific knowledge and university system? How can you complain about the one that always stands for truth and love? Only a fool would complain about this Church!
@VieiraFi get your facts right. Look up largest charities, institutions that propel science and knowledge forward and read your damn book, before talking about love and truth.
@eleminatus Look at Church History (not enlightenment and communist propaganda) and see for yourself. Don't blame others, just because YOU can't understand the Bible. You should study a little more about the Bible too. Look what Christians have said about it and see if it match with the text. Your problem is not lack of faith, you are just ignorant. I'm sorry for you.
@VieiraFi Iwould appreciate if you adjusted your ability to converse. For starters, if you are just gonna ignore my arguments, you are the ignorant one. Secondly, I have studied bible. So what? I understand it perfectly. If you assume, that a 3000 year-old-book is of any moral value, its you who needs to study it. Bronze people understanding of reality was mystified, ignorant and lacking in general, yet you choose to believe it. Its me who is sorry for you!
@VieiraFi why are you putting words in my mouth? You have no idea what I know and what I dont. Yet you assume that you do for no good reason. I have read the bible and I know what it says. Thats something you can not argue away. Also, one of the most dishonest things you can do, is attribute every single argument and point, that contradicts your own, to some sort of propaganda. Buddy, learn how conversations work before engaging in one.
@VieiraFi and Im very well aware of church history - holy wars, witch hunts, inquisitions, prosecution of the none-believers, forceful conversions, annihilation of villages and towns,l denigration and defamation and outright abuse of women, prosecution of gays and I could go on. Its you who needs a lesson on history. Ignorance is bliss for you, but that is not an excuse enough to ignore your own facts.
@eleminatus Indeed, Inquisition is a historical fact. What is nonsense is that some people believe that it killed millions and persecuted scientists. When in fact, Atheist Regimes killed about 150 million people from it's own population.
@V 'Atheist Regimes' If I had a dime for every time I heard that non sense. Atheism had nothing to do with what happened in Russia, or China, or the actions of those like pol pot, etc. It's not a belief system. These rulers did what they did for reasons that have nothing to do with atheism. Also, there were many examples of christian iconography found in Hitler's Nazis (like the SS's belt buckles). Not to mention, the church hid many Nazis after the war.Russia,nor china was ever communist.
@eleminatus Your ideology, sir, is immoral and responsible for the worst crimes that mankind ever had. Not even Gengis Khan or attila the hun would imagine that such horror was possible. Remember of the horrors made by the French Revolution and communists (and nazist) regimes. It's insulting that you even consider to think that the Holy Catholic Church is evil, when your people did this kind of shit to mankind.
@VieiraFi im sorry to hear that you misconstrue such simple concepts. Atheist regimes? You mean Stalin? Mao? Po? If you think they committed their crimes inspired by their atheism, you are..
@VieiraFi ..very much deluded. Its like saying they killed millions cause they wore mustaches or were bold. If you know nothing of their political ideologies, dont venture into unknown...
@VieiraFi ..territory. None of their actions were driven by their atheism. Would you attribute Hitler's crusade to his Catholicism? Of course not. Yet you do that with atheism.
@eleminatus You are listening to much to Richard Dawkins. I heard the exact same shit about "stalin and hitler had mustaches". Life is absurd without god. People can do whatever shit comes to their minds, because there is no source of morality outside your wishes. You can choose what is right and wrong. That kind of thought allows people like Stalin, Po, Mao and Hitler to kill millions without even feeling bad about it.
@eleminatus You are listening to much to Richard Dawkins. I heard the exact same shit about "stalin and hitler had mustaches". Life is absurd without god. People can do whatever shit comes to their minds, because there is no source of morality outside your wishes. You can choose what is right and wrong. That kind of thought allows people like Stalin, Po, Mao and Hitler to kill millions without even feeling bad about it.
@VieiraFi Human morality often finds itself in trouble without somekind of metaphysical sponsor, who defines right and wrong for us. It is as if we do not have enough faith in ourselves to forge morality. Your argument is about the necessity of god to human morality and what makes god useful. Many people make this argument, when depating about the existance of god. But such an argument is useless in a depate about the existance or nonexistance of god. It doesn't offer proof of anything
@ikosabre I agree with you when you say that the fact that life would be meaningless without God doesn't mean that he exists. I wasn't talking about metaphysics at the time.
@VieiraFi the church has done good and bad but its been 2000yrs an still not 1 bit of evidence. Zeus, Thor and all the mythical gods of this time are gone i think its time for jesus to go
@VieiraFi Yes, why complain about the inquisitions, the ritual torture and murder of thousands of women? Why complain about an international paedophile ring who ritually abuse children? In any other situation there would be a massive police investigation, they would be on trial for crimes against humanity. But not the catholic church - slippery and secret, shrouded in holiness and chuckling all the way to the bank! Truth and love? You disgust me!
@VieiraFi you forgot one---the catholic priest have sex with all the lil boys--where was god when the lil boys were being molested by the priest in the church.
@raymondbiggers Where was God when you did something you should not have done? You blaming someone else for your own faults. It is us humans that commit the crimes and then we blame someone else for it. I bet you wanted a god that would punish you the moment you did something wrong without giving you a chance. Those who have committed such a hideous crime will be judged in time. But who made you the judge to decide if anyone committed a crime or not?
And keep in mind that with christianity, they believe that their family members and friends who don't believe will go to hell as well. What kind of heaven would it be, if you never saw your wife again? Or your brother, or your best friend. It's an evil thing, christianity. Good thing there's no reason to believe in it.
It is true that in the Old Testament there were shocking events as the killings apparently "sanctioned" by God, Jesus came to us to offer what God really wants from us. He gave us the Law of Unconditional Love. Before him the revelation was incomplete and then imperfect. An example: In the mosaic law, Moses had given a man the right to repudiate his wife. However, Jesus explained that God permitted that law "because your hearts were hard" (Mk 10, 5). Jesus reveals that is not what God wants.
@IotaEtaSigma This is a very convenient way to explain away the entire "old" testament, where God does "sanction" genocide, stoning to death Homosexuals and condones slavery...I take it "because your hearts were hardened". Forgive us atheists for thinking this is nonsense.
And it was Christianity that made hell the issue it became for millions in the Middle ages and even today. This is the most horrific and absurd concept ever invented by mankind. No one would choose hell !
@adstanra God does not sanction stoning of anyone. Jesus saved an adulterous woman from being stoned by stating the one without sin should cast the first stone. He made it clear with this gesture that mercy, unconditional love, is the highest commandment. St.Peter in the New Testament condemned slavery altogether and that is why Christians called themselves brothers and sisters. Jesus came to call to perfection an imperfect world. I pray that one day you come to realize this.
@IotaEtaSigma actually, God does command the stoning to death of certain people, including homosexuals and even for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. The passage in John where Jesus says : let he who has never sinned cast the first stone...was written by a scribe in the middle ages and is a ridiculous idea..we would never punish anyone if we had to consider if we are sinless. Where does Peter condemn slavery?
@adstanra The passage in John about the adulterous woman was not falsified in the Middle Ages. What exactly happened that this passage has moved about in early translations and some others was not present at all. The thing is that the Bible did not appear in the present form overnight as it was a set of recollections passed on orally. Additions were done as the oral tradition was put into written form. I was wrong about St. Peter but rather St. Paul. See Galatians 3:28.
@IotaEtaSigma the fact is that the periscope is not present in our earliest and best manuscripts. It is also not in any of the other gospels. this is a passage that comes from unknown source, but appears not to have been written by the original author of John, like the endings of Mark. This is a problem for the historical reliability of the gospels.The Galatians passage refers to those in Christ being equal. It is not an explicit condemnation of slavery, and the scriptures condone it through
@adstanra Scriptures is the written form of an oral tradition. During the 1st century AD there was no Bible. Actually, the apostles were not very keen in putting the life of Christ in the written form. They preferred oral transmission. The New Testament started to appear in written form because early Christians wanted to read about it. For instance, most probably the Gospel according to John was not written by him but was the result of his recollections which could lead to inconsistencies.
@IotaEtaSigma I don't know how you know the apostles preferred the oral tradition, but it is likely that they felt oral tradition would be more effective since they thought the world was about to end. The earliest gospel Mark was written about 70 ad and Luke and Matthew add stuff decades later..some stuff , like wise men following a star and a census that are obviously not historical.John adds a whole bunch of other stuff that the other guys apparently never heard of,decades later
@IotaEtaSigma the well known slavery rules. And the adulterous woman passage still if a moral problem ? Are we not to punish anyone unless we have never sinned. This is part of the problem of Jesus, who apparently doesn't distinguish bt "sins". Since the end of the world did not happen , injunctions like this , and "Love your enemy", "do good onto those who persecute" and "turn the other cheek" do not make sense.
@adstanra it would have been a great thing if the God of the universe had commanded us explicitly against slavery, against stoning people to death for being gay, ...or would have commanded we wash our hands before and after we eat or go to the bathroom. Would have been great if he had not counselled men to kill babies (Num 31) ect.
@IotaEtaSigma it not only does not make sense, but it is impossible and absurd. Am I supposed to love Hitler? Turn the other cheek to Stalin? If someone steals 1/2 of my wealth, should I give him the other half? ....I know that god does not , in fact feed the Lillies of the field or the sparrows.
@adstanra That's tough, isn't it? But it's not impossible. You should read stuff about St. Francis of Assisi. He lived the Gospel in the most radical form and the Sultan that held power in the Holy Land during his lifetime was impressed by it.
@IotaEtaSigma do you think St Francis ever had an angry thought or a lustful thought. Do you really think these are equivalent to murder and adultery? Even living his strict life, it was impossible for him....wasn't it. Jesus was not a person who loved his enemies. He spoke with great vitriol about what is going to happen to those brood of vipers. He was willing to accept those who repent, and so am I. But i know the world is not going to end, so turning the other cheek gets it slapped to.
Concerning the "Evil God" that Sam likes to portray, nowhere the Catholic Church defends that children under the age of reason can go to hell. Baptism is not necessary for own salvation. That is quite patent in the Transfiguration, when Jesus appears next to Moses and Elijah in His glory. These 2 patriarchs were never baptized, yet they were in God's glory. Thus what matters is your choices in life. If as a child you cannot make choices you are not going to hell according to the Catholic Church.
However, if you follow another religion faithfully and wholeheartedly as long as you do not break Natural Law (we all have a sense of what is right and wrong) in a grave manner, God's mercy is infinite in those cases. You could say then those people are spiritually "inside the Church" and then they will be saved too. What matters if you are hypocrite or not. Jesus sums it up quite well in Luke 12:48: the more you know the more you are responsible for your acts and you will be judged accordingly.
The assertions of Sam Harris are a string of falsehoods. The Catholic Church does not defend that millions of people in India or anyplace else that did not know God or "pray to the wrong God" go to hell. What the Church defends is that "outside of the Church there is no salvation". This needs to be qualified. If you know the teachings of the Church and chose not to follow it, then you are outside of the Church and then you choose hell by refusing God's Grace.
@eleminatus Harris says God must either be impotent or evil, but there is a third option: that he is a good God who gives humanity free will to act as it pleases. God doesn’t program humanity to always choose the good like some type of moral robot. But Harris’ more obvious misunderstanding is that anyone who does not believe in Jesus goes to hell, which is simply not true. And, unfortunately, I do not have the time nor interest to give you a lecture on salvation. I can only refer you to the CCC.
@jmir1992 congratulations, you have yet another interpretation of the bible and biblical belief system. First of all, if god (assuming he exists) was good, he definitely failed to relay his goodness in his magical book of multiple choices. Secondly, bible explicitly states, that the only way to heaven is through Jesus and faith. Interpret it however you want, the fundamental problem with religion is way more simple.
@eleminatus It’s not just “another interpretation,” it is the official interpretation. The Church does have official teachings, and If you and Harris studied them better then maybe you could provide better arguments. Right now all you do is tear down the God and religion which you created. I agree that misinterpretations of religion do bring problems, but I do not agree that this is reason enough to abolish it. Would you abolish the constitution because people have trouble interpreting it?
@jmir1992 for someone who is trying to school others about their religion, you really know very little about it. What church is teaching is irrelevant. Bible is the only source of...
@eleminatus Church teaching is based on Scripture, and Scripture itself establishes an office to interpret the bible on earth (the magisterium). I am not trying to school you; I am just saying that there is a definite right and wrong way to read the bible. And if you don’t believe that, then neither you nor Harris have any business telling me what the bible teaches, for that would just be another subjective interpretation.
@jmir1992 thats where you are wrong. Neither me nor Harris have any inclination to interpret the bible. Interpretation is not applicable to everything. You can interpret a profound ending of a movie, or maybe a meaning of a song. But concrete rules, directions or facts are not targets for interpretation. John 14:6 or Ephesians 2:8-9 are clear directions of how to get to heaven. Their purpose and message are clear. Yet you guys attempt to interpret them in a way not originally intended.
@eleminatus Sadly, you are still missing the point. Anytime an atheist says the bible is a book of injustice they are interpreting the bible. I argue that it is a book of love because church teaching explains it so, and church teaching gains its authority from the bible. If you don’t believe that there is a true way to interpret it then, why did you ask me to showcase Harris’ misunderstanding of Christianity? To say that there is a misunderstanding implies that there is a correct understanding.
@jmir1992 I partly agree with you. However it's christians that interpret and generally atheists that take it at face value, if taking the bible at face value makes it look ludicrous then it is ludicrous, so why interpret?
Also the fact that there are so many interpretations is a weakness not a strength. The bible can advocate genocide and witch hunting on one side and peace and love on the other. People don't get morals from the bible, people project their morals onto the bible. Odd behaviour.
@jmir1992 what are you talking about? Look up what "interpret" means. I dont interpret anything in bible, since nothing needs to be interpreted. When Leviticus 25:44 condones slavery or Deuteronomy 20:10-14 approves of rape and pillage, there is no place for interpreting. These are blatantly obvious atrocities. But for some reason, believers interpret them and imbue them with completely different meaning and context. Why? Because of their obligations to defend their faith and...
@eleminatus I never said you interpret things in the bible, I said you interpret the bible. You do this every time you define its meaning and overall message. To say that the bible is not meant to be interpreted is just nonsense. It must be interpreted just like any other piece of literature. I'm sure you don't think Mark Twain was racist because he used the 'n' word (I'm only saying this to make a point); because we know that word had a different meaning in that context of history.
@jmir1992 again, look up the definition of the word "interpret", you are misusing it. I do NOT define the meaning or message of the bible, its already defined by the book itself. Thats where your problem lies. Interpretation is required when the message or context is unclear. Bible is extremely thorough on its message. There simply is no need to interpret it from the literary point of view. Understanding literature is not the same as interpreting it.
@jmir1992 I exdplained the reason why interpretations, and ultimately excuses, are required for the bible. And what was Mark Twain example about? I will repeat myself - understanding literature is not the same as interpreting it. Just like your "n" word example demonstrates.
Oh, and next time list your intentions before engaging in the debate, not in the middle of it, when you run out of arguments.
@eleminatus (cont) That is because understanding is a form of interpretation. You are the one who misused the term. You think that if the messege is clear then it needs no interpretation. Well, how do you discern that a message is clear or unclear? Through an assessment of the text, and that is a form of interpretation. My Mark Twain example was merely showing how you can't always take things at face value. Something that is politically incorrect now may have been acceptable in the past.
@eleminatus (cont 2) This is one of the reasons why the bible is not as straight forward as you suggest. And don't worry I will not make the same mistake. I will list my intentions before responding to a seemingly honest and respectful comment. I did not run of arguments, but perhaps I ran out of patience. I have no interest in debating atheists on youtube who jack off to this kind of unorganized and unintelligent 'debate.' Good night sir.
@jmir1992 so now you are just gonna denigrate my debating skills? How typical. The free dictionary does no such mistake of classifying words "understanding" and "interpret" into the same niche. They dont have the same meaning. If you think they do, then you are as deluded about semantics as you are about religion. You dont want to talk anymore? Fine. But the reasons for interpreting perfectly comprehensible text still stand!
@eleminatus (continued) Lastly, I would like to ask you: where do you think this discussion is going? I don't think I'll ever talk sense into you (nor do I intend to), and I think you feel the same about me. I don't care for this discussion. I was only replying to your comment by telling you what the church taught. But little did I know, you weren’t interested in that, you were just looking to pick a fight with a stranger on youtube. I could care less if you're and atheist. Good for you I guess.
@jmir1992 ...and everything encompassing it. Before you assume the love and perfection of your god, you must explain his blood thirst and cruelty first.
Most of the bible is not subject to interpretation. Interpretation is forced upon it for a mere reason of defense. That is the only way to defend biblical errors and atrocities.
PS Matthew was written decades after Jesus died. Did Jesus ever ask for churches?
@jmir1992 most of the bible is rules and teachings with clearly stated messages. But for some reason religious people attempt to interpret them and change the original meaning. Why? Because most of the bible is nonsensical. With factual, historical or scientific errors, or outdated moral principles all you can do is interpret it for a sole purpose of pulling some kind of sense out of it. So dont tell me I dont understand your silly little book, I know it much better then you do!
@jmir1992 oh, and one last detail - neither Jesus nor Yahweh ever said anything about building churches. Or about interpreting their words (assuming bible is the word of god). You just assume you know better!
@jmir1992: "And if you don’t believe that, then neither you nor Harris have any business telling me what the bible teaches..."
What an utterly stupid and arrogant statement. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean we have to. Especially if we find your beliefs to be unsupported by fact.
@chinopisces I don't see why you have to be so agressive to a stranger on the internet. I thought atheists boasted of being more charitable than religious people. And secondly, I get the aweful impression that you are taking this out of context...
You might have heard some atheists boast that but please don't tar all atheists with the same brush based on some small mindedness. It shouldn't be a case of 'us verses them'. It should be a case of "here are the facts and this is what we know".
@chinopisces Please tell me what my claim was. And I know it's not your fault, what kind of response is that?
Being charitable has to do with how respectful you are to others. I don't know you and you don't know me, but yet you accuse me of being "utterly stupid and arrogant." Is that how you treat people you don't know?
You claim that no one has the right to tell you about the bible if we don't believe it. That is ridiculous almost by default. Belief is not required for understanding.
I did not accuse you of being arrogant and stupid. I said your statement was. Can't you make the distinction?
I treat people I don't know with the same level of respect that they do. You have challenged our right to speak out against bad beliefs after you made it public.
@chinopisces I am sorry, but you are wrong about my claim (just as I thought). The person I had been discussing with had said that biblical interpretation was relative. Then I said that, if that is the case, he has no business telling me what it says, for that would just be another relative interpretation. And telling someone that their comment is stupid is also an insult to the author of the comment. It's and indirect insult, but an insult nonetheless.
@jmir1992: Actually, he has every right to tell you his interpretation of what it says. If you expect your own relative interpretation to be valid, you must concede that he has a right to express his. You're on a public forum, you should expect this.
So you're insulted. Cry me a river. My goodness, you're on the internet, dude. Grow thicker skin.
@chinopisces Again, you don't get it. I didn't claim that biblical interpretation was relative (I don't believe it is), he did. And I told him that IF it is then why should I care if he or harris interpret the bible as a book of injustice. Its all relative, so why is one interpretation better than the other? There not. If it was relative I wouldn't expect my interpretation to be more valid either.
And its not that I am offended, I was simply surprised by your lack of courtsey.
@jmir1992: Actually, it is relative. You may not believe it to be so, but if this were not the case, then why are there so many different beliefs about it? Just look at all the christian denominations that exist and you should be able to deduce that it is indeed the case. And guess what — your interpretation is not any more valid indeed.
You shouldn't be surprised. You're on YouTube discussing religion.
@chinopisces I believe that out of all the interpretations of the bible one of them has to be right, and all the other ones wrong. Furthermore, I don't claim to 100% know what the TRUE interpretation is. All I know is that if it's relative, as you and many other atheists claim, no one's interpreation has any serious validity and therefore it is stupid to bring them up in arguments against religion.
@jmir1992: Well, I believe almost none of them to be true. Since each religion has elements that contradict one another, obviously not all of them could be right. However, all of them could certainly be wrong.
The question is, since you don't claim to have absolute certainty on which interpretation is correct, how do we determine which is right and which is wrong? This is where religion must concede the use the best system for making such determinations: science and logic.
@chinopisces I agree, in order to determine if there is a right religion one has to use science, but also philosophy, not just logic (which is only one branch of philosophy). Only then can men decide if there is a right religion, or no religion at all. But it really does bother me when people assume the authority to claim that it's all relative. There is no reason why any belief system (atheism included) is better than another if it's all relative, there is just no room to argue.
@jmir1992: Just so you know, atheism is not a belief system. It is a rejection of a claim. But that doesn't expand your point or mine. Atheists (and I think everyone) has their own personal belief system, which would point towards the likelihood that all belief systems can indeed be subjective to each individual.
If indeed, any belief system is relative, then there really isn't justifiable reason to continue the argument since it gets us nowhere. Interestingly enough, people do so anyway.
@chinopisces Yep, I agree that if it's all relative then there is no need for argument.
I consider atheism to be a belief system because it does require a type of faith. Even Dawkins admitted that he cannot 100% know that God doesn't exist, but nevertheless he chooses to believe he doesn't. And chooses to believe that science will one day figure it all out, although he does not have 100% proof that it will. I see atheism as faith in the other direction. I hope I'm making sense.
@jmir1992 Atheism is not a belief system, a philosophy, or a claim, it does not require faith.
No one can know anything 100% for sure, however you can determine what is probable and what isn't. It is incredibly improbable that a god exists. The god of the bible that most people believe in can not exist due to logical impossibilities in the definition of such a god (all powerful, all knowing, all-benevolent).
Ignorant man, it is not a cracker. you dont even know what Catholic Church teaches and uses in our believes. That alone shows your dishonesty.
37thecrusader 1 hour ago
@37thecrusader maybe you should pray to fix everything then...it might work bro!
HPhenomenal 1 hour ago
They are dying because they are stubborn and dont listen the Word of God throught His Holy Catholic Church. Your arguments is because you want a God to do your will. But we are called to do God's Will. You are forgetting that many does understand the Will of God. You and others judge yourselves incapable of understanding His Will because of your disobedience.
37thecrusader 1 hour ago
Here is a man who considers himself too good yet does not know that he is contributing to the evils of the world. God is good, it is the disobedience of man to God that leads to evil doing. He considers himself so good that he fails to recognize the evil in his heart. Putting God on trial and making a case against Him, is not going to change the Truth about God. I guess he has not considered his own fate which he has no control over it. It is called death of the body and soul.
37thecrusader 3 hours ago
I think the argument was against Christianity rather than Catholicism... could this have been a deliberate error?
2001Horatio 16 hours ago
I was raised in a devoutly Cathiloc enviroment, but in my late teens I began questioning the completely absurd shit that the theology taught. I am now a christian, but I do not believe everything that is taught by any organized religion or the bible. Why, you might ask? Because those are both created by Man, and I believe they merely set up a power structure.
ReachDeep1 19 hours ago
@ReachDeep1 Where is your evidence that it isn't all made by man? I think you're cherrypicking the argument.
ConfuzedSushi 7 hours ago
@ConfuzedSushi Chairman Mao (an atheist) was responsible for killing 40-70 million people. Stalin (an atheist) was responsible for killing roughly 30 million people. Hitler (who is commonly thought to be a Christian, but is clearly not) is responsible for roughly 12 million people's deaths. Basically, add up the attrocities committed by true Christians and those committed by people who were not, and you clearly see a divide in their moralities. This is just the tip of the iceberg....
ReachDeep1 4 hours ago
@ReachDeep1 That is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard, yet I hear it over and over from religious people. Besides there are many quotes from Hitler which suggest he was a christian. For example "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." and "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." Sound like someone who does not believe in god? No
DTSquance 4 hours ago
@DTSquance It's funny how you try to condemn what I have said as idiotic when you cannot distinguish between believing in a supreme creator and Christianity. Not all people who believe in God are Christians, oh wise one. Besides, if you knew anything about real Christianity, you would know that it teaches non-violence. Now I know you just want to argue and fight with me, but you have already shown yourself to be irrelevent in any intellectual debate. Your messages will be ignored. Good day.
ReachDeep1 3 hours ago
@DTSquance
He must have taken his christianty from somewhere else since he killed millions of Catholics. his purpose was to wiped out jews and Catholics from the face of the earth.
37thecrusader 2 hours ago
@ReachDeep1 have you read some of the atrocities commanded by God in the bible, or the atrocities caused by God himself ( Noah). I wonder what kind of destruction would have occurred by the crusaders had they had modern weapons? The reason certain communists hated the church was because for centuries these churches supported the Czars/Emperors. It is Dogmas of any sort that we need to be leery of.
adstanra 3 hours ago
@adstanra That's the real trouble with organized religion; leaders tend to use it falsely to gather support for their policies and to attain their goals. For instance, the crusades were not executed by any real Christians as they were unnecessary wars of aggression. I do not fully believe anything taught by any organization/theology as they're usually infiltrated by Man's desires. I take my morality from Christianty, but I believe that Christ's true message has been skewed through time.
ReachDeep1 3 hours ago
@adstanra
Learn history before you speak. The Crusaders were not the attackers, they were the defenders. They gave their lives to save Catholics from being exterminated by Muslims in the land. Catholics have been killed from the beginning, by roman pagans, hitler killed 4 millions Catholics. england revolt against the Church murdered millions of Catholics. communists almost wiped Catholics out of the land. Again, read true history or come as ignorant and foolish.
37thecrusader 2 hours ago
Is there a video up of the christian part of the debate?
DieByMyHand1 21 hours ago
Comment removed
obe19900 18 hours ago
@DieByMyHand1
FULL DEBATE
youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
obe19900 18 hours ago
Saying, 'I don't believe in God' is different than saying 'God doesn't exist'. Atheism claims the latter. Think about it.
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992
It doesn't. You're stupid as fuck, no offense.
cergzor 1 day ago
@jmir1992 You're an idiot.
diomedes39 23 hours ago
@jmir1992
'God doesn't exist.' = gnostic atheist
'I don't believe in God.' = agnostic atheist
JulienIsACamper 22 hours ago
@jmir1992 Nothing is possible to know with 100% certainty. It doesn't matter. For the sake of practcality we can assert that god, leprechauns, the fly spaghetti monster and a giant teapot orbiting jupiter do not exist.
dabomb1357 18 hours ago
Comment removed
jmir1992 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SIGNS OF JESUS COMING:DAMASCUS,SYRIA-WILL BE DESTROYED(ISAIAH 17:1),EGYPT(ISAIAH 19:1),ISRAEL-DIVIDED(JOEL 3:1-2),WARS-IRAN’PERSIA’(EZEKIEL 38-39,PSALMS 83), EARTHQUAKES(MATT.24),MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF ANIMALS(HOSEA 4:3),GLOBAL STRANGE SOUNDS(JEREMIAH 25:31).IT’S FRIGHTENING FOR THOSE WHO DON’T KNOW THE TRUTH.HELL IS REAL!WWIII,MEGA EARTHQUAKE?–RAPTURE (1THESSALONIANS 4:17)-ABOUT TO HAPPEN--ONLY THE HOLY ONES WILL SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.REPENT!READ THE BIBLE.GET IN THE ARK NOW!JESUS IS COMING!
ENTERRAPTURE20 1 day ago
Science is well ahead...any progress made by scientists is then worked into the religious acceptance....at least science is trying to uncover the truth and is honest in the process. Religion sits on its fat arrogant ass and quotes an archaic book of stories. Get real!
jameskparos 1 day ago
Well said by Sam...how can any one contest these truths...they must be delusional.
jameskparos 1 day ago
Sam Harris is right. I honestly do not understand how anyone can take WCG seriously.
biggingeryeti 1 day ago
It is arrogant for any religion to claim they are the right one. Each religion could say the same of the other...that if people don't belong to theirs, the'd go to hell....really? How do they know? Who can say that with certainty? Were is the prove?
avellaneh 1 day ago
@avellaneh In Christianity it works this way: Everyone that go against God's Law (sin) deseirve to be punished with hell. The only exception is for the believers in Jesus Christ. Jesus pays the price that they would pay being at hell. Which basically means, we both deseirve hell, the difference between us is that I accepted the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Christians aren't better than anyone. If they were, no cross would be required.
VieiraFi 1 day ago
Christianity doesn't claim to have empirical evidence of its claims. You just have to have faith in Our Blessed Lord and that's it. No need to have evidence. Some christians like Dr.Craig say they have proof of Jesus ressurrection, but it's not a very common position in christianity. About other religions, unless you have studied them, don't try to say anything you don't really know. Sadly, I see lots of fellow christians saying things about the muslim faith that are completely nonsense.
VieiraFi 1 day ago
@avellaneh I am a Catholic, and the church I'm part of does NOT believe that you go to hell just because you belong to another religion. We believe in a merciful God that favors acts of unconditional love above all. Many saints have just done that, as for instance St. Beatriz da Silva and St John of God. They saw the horrible conditions the poor lived and they everything to help. Hell is reserved for those who committed a grave sin (like denying helping someone in grave danger) and didn't repent
IotaEtaSigma 1 day ago
Sam Harris always gets it right! Religion is destroying the world. It has infected the republican party. We need to move away from this make-believe. Science is always our best method for discovery. My Atheist friends will enjoy "Religious Fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel.
Sweence 1 day ago
is that shit about post holes really true? O___o
peppercarnage 2 days ago
if you watch this video, and understand it, how can you still believe in any religion?
itsmRo 2 days ago
No sane person can really argue against this. Religion has truly made me embarrassed to be a human.
Graddy5 2 days ago
@Graddy5 Being human has embarrassed me to be a human.
jmir1992 2 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
think there is a simple fact that everybody seems to overlook, that thousands of people have died and come back and told us what they saw,and what they saw was incredibly similar, and some of these people were satanists and atheists,who after their experience converted. Just something to think about
soldier7of7christ7 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Sure, ther's also Santa Claus and Miky Mouse my son.
71Plastico 2 days ago 15
@soldier7of7christ7 bullshit
kalbahamut 2 days ago
Brain restarting, not that big of a deal. What we can't describe in words we use comparisons, by nature, to what is stored in our brains. And what is driven into us about our deaths? Life after is...
PeedgeMcDuck 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 We are all human, is it all that surprising that we experience the same visual phenomena when we die in certain ways? To explain something as being supernatural is not to explain it at all. It may be true that people physiologically "see" a white light, tunnel, etc when they die irregardless of bias but if they do there is no reason to think that there isn't a natural explanation, that is leap from vague evidence to a very specific and biased answer.
DSBrekus 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Actually, what people see in these near death experiences varies wildly from person to person, and seems to be dependent upon what the person believes about an afterlife.
Yohfay 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 that does not prove ANYTHING.
OGABell 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Clearly, they didn't actually die!
IEndeavourAlways 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 not exactly; many people don't recall anything at all, and the experience you have seems to be contingent upon where you live and what religion you are. Buddhists in Thailand recall encounters with beings and visiting locations from Thai mythology and buddhist scriptures. And this reaffirms their faith in that religion. To say that everyone has had the same experience is fairly misleading.
heathenwizard 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Is that evidence?
TheSlapdown 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Science can and has explained near death experiences using physiological reasoning. When a person who is Muslim and has a NDE, they have Muslim experiences, they see Muhammad. When a Christian dies they have Christian experiences, they see Jesus. If there is a heaven which one is it like? People also supposedly experience past lives. Christianity doesn't believe in re-incarnation co how do you explain that? It is explained with biology.
bingoe4 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 people that die see a bright light often times. now we could assume that it means god is real and they were going to heaven. or we could look into why else that could be. the fact is, it's caused by an altered state of perception. a chemical reaction takes place in your brain from a lack of air and stuff. they come back with parts of their brain dead and naturally, with their now almost inhuman stupidity, gravitate towards stupid beliefs.
SoCalAries 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7; hey buddy. I had a NDE, and do you know what I did after? I wanted to know what actually happened. Turns out there is a neurological explanation for these things. What I saw and felt was my brain shutting down, keeping me alive for as long as possible. Guess what, it worked. I was atheist before, I'm atheist after. I saw no god. I saw me, and the woman I love. My favorite memory. If all of those other people would actually learn about what happened, they would act different.
rampaginwalrus 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 cerebral hypoxia. look it up. near death experiences have been safely replicated in a laboratory setting. you can also get similar results experimenting with dimethyltryptamine(DMT). "the truth will set you free, but it will piss you off". learn to let go.
mugable 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 I was dead and came back...well, doctors brought me back. I didn't see anything. It was like sleeping without dreams and with no sense of time and space. So what do you say about that?
Rusvi1 2 days ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Ah, you just refuted your own comment, if the satanists and the athiests saw the same thing as the christians then it suggests that all people have the same experience of death, not that some ppl go to heaven and some hell. Just something to think about brah.
Baldodeathmetal 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soldier7of7christ7 think there is a simple fact that everybody seems to overlook, that thousands of people have been abducted by aleins and come back and told us what they saw,and what they saw was incredibly similar, and some of these people were theists and atheists,who after their experience converted to alien worship. Just something to think about
EntinludeX 1 day ago
@soldier7of7christ7 Here's the simple fact you're denying. None of them died. Yes, their heart stopped, their bodily functions ceased for a brief time, but none of them suffered brain death. Which is why the clinical definition of death has been revised. What they told us and what they saw were affects of a brain deprived of oxygen. The random firing of nerve impulses, which happens to every humans' brain, in the same regions at the same time. Which is why the stories are similar.
Inclousid 1 day ago
@soldier7of7christ7 There are also muslims, hindus and stories from over the centuries telling us of similar stories, but with their particular "savior" or god being on the other side...so do you mean to tell me that they all exist? Or how about the scientific explanation that tells us that at the moment of death, a large amount of endorphins are released and causes hallucinations in the forms of dreams and creates a feeling of "bliss and floating"...what seems more likely?
dallased25 1 day ago
@soldier7of7christ7
It's called the orbital lobe shutting down, it's one of the first parts of the brain to shut down during death. Why would it be surprising that the event was similar for everyone? We all run on similar circuitry after all.
protossenslaver 1 day ago
@soldier7of7christ7
Im sure you could take lots of accounts of peoples dreams while they are unconscious and if you pick the right dreams you could match them up to be incredibly similar. However, this does not mean they have any link with reality.
SamCoreJ 1 day ago
@soldier7of7christ7: ...if you are smoking crack.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@6:30 WLC answering 'C' to every multiple choice question, because C is for Christ and Christ is always right...
rauulsf 3 days ago
do you have Craig's response? cause I'll die to hear man. Ty for uploading this btw
locozito 3 days ago
If the Christian God was here on earth a living breathing human and was allowed to dictate his terms on all peoples' in the World, he would have had murdered millions of more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Crusades combined. That would include woman and children most of all, owning slaves would be law, thought crime punishable by death, stealing would be a stoning to death. On top of that, we would have to bow down and kneel to our master, praising him in his glory. WAKE UP Theists'!
PlntPeace 3 days ago 2
@PlntPeace Lol, and it would be like that for ETERNITY waking and sleeping and even after death.
Gonicksomestuff 3 days ago
This is one of the very best speeches from the Atheist camp that I've ever heard. Well done Sam - beautifully said.
robtron2 3 days ago
Wow. My vestigal altar boy has finally been squished. Thanks Sam.
torputube 3 days ago
pwned
NoogieFoshoogie99 3 days ago
sam harris made a wisecrack about Francis Collins on the bill maher show recently. said the reason Francis Collins, who is by the way a REAL CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST, can get away with some of his stuff is because "no one challenges his bull$hit".
you all owe it to yourselves to COMPARE Francis Collin's resume' to Sam Harris'.....*snicker*
graysonTW 3 days ago
why would Notre Dame invite this phobic as*hole to the campus?
graysonTW 3 days ago
Love is the only religion one needs
freshair3451 3 days ago
@raymondbiggers Still, the number of pedophiles outside the church is proportionately bigger.
VieiraFi 3 days ago
@raymondbiggers You should read Fr. Malachi Martin's Windswept House. He explain how some homossexuals were infiltrated in the Catholic Church to destroy it by inside.
VieiraFi 3 days ago
Now you atheists, who claim to be "brights", can you actually study a little? I mean, go read some St.Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas, Bernard Lonergan, Eric Voegelin, Duns Scot, William of Ockham, G.K Chesterton, Mortimer J. Adler, Jacques Maritain, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger (yes, the Pope Benedict XVI). When you finish your studies we can go back and discuss for a little while ;D
VieiraFi 4 days ago
@VieiraFi go study buddhism, hinduism, islam, chinese traditional, judaism
raymondbiggers 3 days ago
@raymondbiggers We are both ignorant about these religions. The difference between us is that I don't come and lie about those religions, like you do with christianity. I will only say anything about buddhism, when I have deep knowledge about it.
But you you probably think it's wiser to come and say any shit that comes to you about subjects you have absolutely no idea.
VieiraFi 3 days ago
@VieiraFi i only stated fact. never said anything else. you claim i have absolutely no idea about the priest molesting lil boys. nuns getting pregnant and killing the babies. the priest that screwed the nuns were not gay-----these are facts
raymondbiggers 3 days ago
Sam Harris is pathetic. How can an idiot like him destroy the Catholicism? The Roman Catholic Church gave to the world everything good that it has. I mean, how can you complain about an institution that is World's Largest Charity Institution? How can you complain about the responsible for scientific knowledge and university system? How can you complain about the one that always stands for truth and love? Only a fool would complain about this Church!
VieiraFi 4 days ago
@VieiraFi get your facts right. Look up largest charities, institutions that propel science and knowledge forward and read your damn book, before talking about love and truth.
eleminatus 4 days ago
@eleminatus Look at Church History (not enlightenment and communist propaganda) and see for yourself. Don't blame others, just because YOU can't understand the Bible. You should study a little more about the Bible too. Look what Christians have said about it and see if it match with the text. Your problem is not lack of faith, you are just ignorant. I'm sorry for you.
VieiraFi 4 days ago
@VieiraFi Iwould appreciate if you adjusted your ability to converse. For starters, if you are just gonna ignore my arguments, you are the ignorant one. Secondly, I have studied bible. So what? I understand it perfectly. If you assume, that a 3000 year-old-book is of any moral value, its you who needs to study it. Bronze people understanding of reality was mystified, ignorant and lacking in general, yet you choose to believe it. Its me who is sorry for you!
eleminatus 3 days ago
@eleminatus Yeah, you read the Bible, you didn't understand a thing and now you think you can come and say whatever you want. Come on, man.
VieiraFi 3 days ago
@VieiraFi why are you putting words in my mouth? You have no idea what I know and what I dont. Yet you assume that you do for no good reason. I have read the bible and I know what it says. Thats something you can not argue away. Also, one of the most dishonest things you can do, is attribute every single argument and point, that contradicts your own, to some sort of propaganda. Buddy, learn how conversations work before engaging in one.
eleminatus 3 days ago
@VieiraFi and Im very well aware of church history - holy wars, witch hunts, inquisitions, prosecution of the none-believers, forceful conversions, annihilation of villages and towns,l denigration and defamation and outright abuse of women, prosecution of gays and I could go on. Its you who needs a lesson on history. Ignorance is bliss for you, but that is not an excuse enough to ignore your own facts.
eleminatus 3 days ago
@eleminatus enlightenment and communist propaganda. Good Luck reading some historians.
VieiraFi 3 days ago
Comment removed
VieiraFi 3 days ago
@VieiraFi buddy, inquisition is a historic fact. Dont attempt to cover it with conspiracy nonsense. Makes you look silly!
eleminatus 3 days ago
@eleminatus Indeed, Inquisition is a historical fact. What is nonsense is that some people believe that it killed millions and persecuted scientists. When in fact, Atheist Regimes killed about 150 million people from it's own population.
VieiraFi 2 days ago
@V 'Atheist Regimes' If I had a dime for every time I heard that non sense. Atheism had nothing to do with what happened in Russia, or China, or the actions of those like pol pot, etc. It's not a belief system. These rulers did what they did for reasons that have nothing to do with atheism. Also, there were many examples of christian iconography found in Hitler's Nazis (like the SS's belt buckles). Not to mention, the church hid many Nazis after the war.Russia,nor china was ever communist.
pillsareyummy 1 day ago
@eleminatus Your ideology, sir, is immoral and responsible for the worst crimes that mankind ever had. Not even Gengis Khan or attila the hun would imagine that such horror was possible. Remember of the horrors made by the French Revolution and communists (and nazist) regimes. It's insulting that you even consider to think that the Holy Catholic Church is evil, when your people did this kind of shit to mankind.
VieiraFi 2 days ago
@VieiraFi im sorry to hear that you misconstrue such simple concepts. Atheist regimes? You mean Stalin? Mao? Po? If you think they committed their crimes inspired by their atheism, you are..
eleminatus 2 days ago
@VieiraFi ..very much deluded. Its like saying they killed millions cause they wore mustaches or were bold. If you know nothing of their political ideologies, dont venture into unknown...
eleminatus 2 days ago
@VieiraFi ..territory. None of their actions were driven by their atheism. Would you attribute Hitler's crusade to his Catholicism? Of course not. Yet you do that with atheism.
eleminatus 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleminatus You are listening to much to Richard Dawkins. I heard the exact same shit about "stalin and hitler had mustaches". Life is absurd without god. People can do whatever shit comes to their minds, because there is no source of morality outside your wishes. You can choose what is right and wrong. That kind of thought allows people like Stalin, Po, Mao and Hitler to kill millions without even feeling bad about it.
VieiraFi 2 days ago
@VieiraFi stop using double standards and drawing correlations where they dont exist!
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus You are listening to much to Richard Dawkins. I heard the exact same shit about "stalin and hitler had mustaches". Life is absurd without god. People can do whatever shit comes to their minds, because there is no source of morality outside your wishes. You can choose what is right and wrong. That kind of thought allows people like Stalin, Po, Mao and Hitler to kill millions without even feeling bad about it.
VieiraFi 2 days ago
@VieiraFi Human morality often finds itself in trouble without somekind of metaphysical sponsor, who defines right and wrong for us. It is as if we do not have enough faith in ourselves to forge morality. Your argument is about the necessity of god to human morality and what makes god useful. Many people make this argument, when depating about the existance of god. But such an argument is useless in a depate about the existance or nonexistance of god. It doesn't offer proof of anything
ikosabre 1 day ago
@VieiraFi other, than our all too human longing for something better, for somekind of an creator, who can give meaning and morality to us.
ikosabre 1 day ago
@ikosabre I agree with you when you say that the fact that life would be meaningless without God doesn't mean that he exists. I wasn't talking about metaphysics at the time.
VieiraFi 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eleminatus Have you, at least, read any reliable history book about inquisition?
VieiraFi 3 days ago
@VieiraFi the church has done good and bad but its been 2000yrs an still not 1 bit of evidence. Zeus, Thor and all the mythical gods of this time are gone i think its time for jesus to go
J0nnyCArr 4 days ago
@VieiraFi Yes, why complain about the inquisitions, the ritual torture and murder of thousands of women? Why complain about an international paedophile ring who ritually abuse children? In any other situation there would be a massive police investigation, they would be on trial for crimes against humanity. But not the catholic church - slippery and secret, shrouded in holiness and chuckling all the way to the bank! Truth and love? You disgust me!
itsreallymehonestly 3 days ago
@VieiraFi you forgot one---the catholic priest have sex with all the lil boys--where was god when the lil boys were being molested by the priest in the church.
raymondbiggers 3 days ago
@raymondbiggers Where was God when you did something you should not have done? You blaming someone else for your own faults. It is us humans that commit the crimes and then we blame someone else for it. I bet you wanted a god that would punish you the moment you did something wrong without giving you a chance. Those who have committed such a hideous crime will be judged in time. But who made you the judge to decide if anyone committed a crime or not?
IotaEtaSigma 3 days ago
And keep in mind that with christianity, they believe that their family members and friends who don't believe will go to hell as well. What kind of heaven would it be, if you never saw your wife again? Or your brother, or your best friend. It's an evil thing, christianity. Good thing there's no reason to believe in it.
PACKyourSHITfolks420 4 days ago
Hey, and one more thing William Lane Craig is an Evangelical Christian, not a Catholic. Thus, the title of this video is SO absolutely misleading.
IotaEtaSigma 4 days ago
It is true that in the Old Testament there were shocking events as the killings apparently "sanctioned" by God, Jesus came to us to offer what God really wants from us. He gave us the Law of Unconditional Love. Before him the revelation was incomplete and then imperfect. An example: In the mosaic law, Moses had given a man the right to repudiate his wife. However, Jesus explained that God permitted that law "because your hearts were hard" (Mk 10, 5). Jesus reveals that is not what God wants.
IotaEtaSigma 4 days ago
@IotaEtaSigma This is a very convenient way to explain away the entire "old" testament, where God does "sanction" genocide, stoning to death Homosexuals and condones slavery...I take it "because your hearts were hardened". Forgive us atheists for thinking this is nonsense.
And it was Christianity that made hell the issue it became for millions in the Middle ages and even today. This is the most horrific and absurd concept ever invented by mankind. No one would choose hell !
adstanra 4 days ago
@adstanra God does not sanction stoning of anyone. Jesus saved an adulterous woman from being stoned by stating the one without sin should cast the first stone. He made it clear with this gesture that mercy, unconditional love, is the highest commandment. St.Peter in the New Testament condemned slavery altogether and that is why Christians called themselves brothers and sisters. Jesus came to call to perfection an imperfect world. I pray that one day you come to realize this.
IotaEtaSigma 3 days ago
@IotaEtaSigma actually, God does command the stoning to death of certain people, including homosexuals and even for collecting sticks on the Sabbath. The passage in John where Jesus says : let he who has never sinned cast the first stone...was written by a scribe in the middle ages and is a ridiculous idea..we would never punish anyone if we had to consider if we are sinless. Where does Peter condemn slavery?
adstanra 1 day ago
@adstanra The passage in John about the adulterous woman was not falsified in the Middle Ages. What exactly happened that this passage has moved about in early translations and some others was not present at all. The thing is that the Bible did not appear in the present form overnight as it was a set of recollections passed on orally. Additions were done as the oral tradition was put into written form. I was wrong about St. Peter but rather St. Paul. See Galatians 3:28.
IotaEtaSigma 1 day ago
@IotaEtaSigma the fact is that the periscope is not present in our earliest and best manuscripts. It is also not in any of the other gospels. this is a passage that comes from unknown source, but appears not to have been written by the original author of John, like the endings of Mark. This is a problem for the historical reliability of the gospels.The Galatians passage refers to those in Christ being equal. It is not an explicit condemnation of slavery, and the scriptures condone it through
adstanra 1 day ago
@adstanra Scriptures is the written form of an oral tradition. During the 1st century AD there was no Bible. Actually, the apostles were not very keen in putting the life of Christ in the written form. They preferred oral transmission. The New Testament started to appear in written form because early Christians wanted to read about it. For instance, most probably the Gospel according to John was not written by him but was the result of his recollections which could lead to inconsistencies.
IotaEtaSigma 1 day ago
@IotaEtaSigma I don't know how you know the apostles preferred the oral tradition, but it is likely that they felt oral tradition would be more effective since they thought the world was about to end. The earliest gospel Mark was written about 70 ad and Luke and Matthew add stuff decades later..some stuff , like wise men following a star and a census that are obviously not historical.John adds a whole bunch of other stuff that the other guys apparently never heard of,decades later
adstanra 1 day ago
@IotaEtaSigma the well known slavery rules. And the adulterous woman passage still if a moral problem ? Are we not to punish anyone unless we have never sinned. This is part of the problem of Jesus, who apparently doesn't distinguish bt "sins". Since the end of the world did not happen , injunctions like this , and "Love your enemy", "do good onto those who persecute" and "turn the other cheek" do not make sense.
adstanra 1 day ago
@adstanra it would have been a great thing if the God of the universe had commanded us explicitly against slavery, against stoning people to death for being gay, ...or would have commanded we wash our hands before and after we eat or go to the bathroom. Would have been great if he had not counselled men to kill babies (Num 31) ect.
thes books were written by humans.
adstanra 1 day ago
@adstanra I agree with you. Without faith loving your enemy does not make any sense. But by believing in Him it does.
IotaEtaSigma 1 day ago
@IotaEtaSigma it not only does not make sense, but it is impossible and absurd. Am I supposed to love Hitler? Turn the other cheek to Stalin? If someone steals 1/2 of my wealth, should I give him the other half? ....I know that god does not , in fact feed the Lillies of the field or the sparrows.
adstanra 1 day ago
@adstanra That's tough, isn't it? But it's not impossible. You should read stuff about St. Francis of Assisi. He lived the Gospel in the most radical form and the Sultan that held power in the Holy Land during his lifetime was impressed by it.
IotaEtaSigma 18 hours ago
@IotaEtaSigma do you think St Francis ever had an angry thought or a lustful thought. Do you really think these are equivalent to murder and adultery? Even living his strict life, it was impossible for him....wasn't it. Jesus was not a person who loved his enemies. He spoke with great vitriol about what is going to happen to those brood of vipers. He was willing to accept those who repent, and so am I. But i know the world is not going to end, so turning the other cheek gets it slapped to.
adstanra 4 hours ago
Concerning the "Evil God" that Sam likes to portray, nowhere the Catholic Church defends that children under the age of reason can go to hell. Baptism is not necessary for own salvation. That is quite patent in the Transfiguration, when Jesus appears next to Moses and Elijah in His glory. These 2 patriarchs were never baptized, yet they were in God's glory. Thus what matters is your choices in life. If as a child you cannot make choices you are not going to hell according to the Catholic Church.
IotaEtaSigma 4 days ago
However, if you follow another religion faithfully and wholeheartedly as long as you do not break Natural Law (we all have a sense of what is right and wrong) in a grave manner, God's mercy is infinite in those cases. You could say then those people are spiritually "inside the Church" and then they will be saved too. What matters if you are hypocrite or not. Jesus sums it up quite well in Luke 12:48: the more you know the more you are responsible for your acts and you will be judged accordingly.
IotaEtaSigma 4 days ago
The assertions of Sam Harris are a string of falsehoods. The Catholic Church does not defend that millions of people in India or anyplace else that did not know God or "pray to the wrong God" go to hell. What the Church defends is that "outside of the Church there is no salvation". This needs to be qualified. If you know the teachings of the Church and chose not to follow it, then you are outside of the Church and then you choose hell by refusing God's Grace.
IotaEtaSigma 4 days ago
Anyone have link to full debate?
woadraid 4 days ago
Such a poor understanding of Christianity...
jmir1992 4 days ago
@jmir1992 showcase where he displays poor understanding of Christianity please!
eleminatus 4 days ago
@eleminatus Harris says God must either be impotent or evil, but there is a third option: that he is a good God who gives humanity free will to act as it pleases. God doesn’t program humanity to always choose the good like some type of moral robot. But Harris’ more obvious misunderstanding is that anyone who does not believe in Jesus goes to hell, which is simply not true. And, unfortunately, I do not have the time nor interest to give you a lecture on salvation. I can only refer you to the CCC.
jmir1992 3 days ago
@jmir1992 congratulations, you have yet another interpretation of the bible and biblical belief system. First of all, if god (assuming he exists) was good, he definitely failed to relay his goodness in his magical book of multiple choices. Secondly, bible explicitly states, that the only way to heaven is through Jesus and faith. Interpret it however you want, the fundamental problem with religion is way more simple.
eleminatus 3 days ago 7
@eleminatus It’s not just “another interpretation,” it is the official interpretation. The Church does have official teachings, and If you and Harris studied them better then maybe you could provide better arguments. Right now all you do is tear down the God and religion which you created. I agree that misinterpretations of religion do bring problems, but I do not agree that this is reason enough to abolish it. Would you abolish the constitution because people have trouble interpreting it?
jmir1992 3 days ago
@jmir1992 for someone who is trying to school others about their religion, you really know very little about it. What church is teaching is irrelevant. Bible is the only source of...
eleminatus 3 days ago
@jmir1992 any kind of divine information. And if you ignore what bible says and follow the canons of a church, you are no christian!
eleminatus 3 days ago
@eleminatus Church teaching is based on Scripture, and Scripture itself establishes an office to interpret the bible on earth (the magisterium). I am not trying to school you; I am just saying that there is a definite right and wrong way to read the bible. And if you don’t believe that, then neither you nor Harris have any business telling me what the bible teaches, for that would just be another subjective interpretation.
jmir1992 2 days ago
@jmir1992 thats where you are wrong. Neither me nor Harris have any inclination to interpret the bible. Interpretation is not applicable to everything. You can interpret a profound ending of a movie, or maybe a meaning of a song. But concrete rules, directions or facts are not targets for interpretation. John 14:6 or Ephesians 2:8-9 are clear directions of how to get to heaven. Their purpose and message are clear. Yet you guys attempt to interpret them in a way not originally intended.
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus Sadly, you are still missing the point. Anytime an atheist says the bible is a book of injustice they are interpreting the bible. I argue that it is a book of love because church teaching explains it so, and church teaching gains its authority from the bible. If you don’t believe that there is a true way to interpret it then, why did you ask me to showcase Harris’ misunderstanding of Christianity? To say that there is a misunderstanding implies that there is a correct understanding.
jmir1992 2 days ago
@jmir1992 I partly agree with you. However it's christians that interpret and generally atheists that take it at face value, if taking the bible at face value makes it look ludicrous then it is ludicrous, so why interpret?
Also the fact that there are so many interpretations is a weakness not a strength. The bible can advocate genocide and witch hunting on one side and peace and love on the other. People don't get morals from the bible, people project their morals onto the bible. Odd behaviour.
DSBrekus 2 days ago
@jmir1992 what are you talking about? Look up what "interpret" means. I dont interpret anything in bible, since nothing needs to be interpreted. When Leviticus 25:44 condones slavery or Deuteronomy 20:10-14 approves of rape and pillage, there is no place for interpreting. These are blatantly obvious atrocities. But for some reason, believers interpret them and imbue them with completely different meaning and context. Why? Because of their obligations to defend their faith and...
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus I never said you interpret things in the bible, I said you interpret the bible. You do this every time you define its meaning and overall message. To say that the bible is not meant to be interpreted is just nonsense. It must be interpreted just like any other piece of literature. I'm sure you don't think Mark Twain was racist because he used the 'n' word (I'm only saying this to make a point); because we know that word had a different meaning in that context of history.
jmir1992 2 days ago
@jmir1992 again, look up the definition of the word "interpret", you are misusing it. I do NOT define the meaning or message of the bible, its already defined by the book itself. Thats where your problem lies. Interpretation is required when the message or context is unclear. Bible is extremely thorough on its message. There simply is no need to interpret it from the literary point of view. Understanding literature is not the same as interpreting it.
eleminatus 2 days ago
@jmir1992 I exdplained the reason why interpretations, and ultimately excuses, are required for the bible. And what was Mark Twain example about? I will repeat myself - understanding literature is not the same as interpreting it. Just like your "n" word example demonstrates.
Oh, and next time list your intentions before engaging in the debate, not in the middle of it, when you run out of arguments.
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus If you look up 'understanding' in meriam-webster you will see it is synomous with the words 'explanation' and 'interpretation'.
jmir1992 2 days ago
@eleminatus (cont) That is because understanding is a form of interpretation. You are the one who misused the term. You think that if the messege is clear then it needs no interpretation. Well, how do you discern that a message is clear or unclear? Through an assessment of the text, and that is a form of interpretation. My Mark Twain example was merely showing how you can't always take things at face value. Something that is politically incorrect now may have been acceptable in the past.
jmir1992 2 days ago
Comment removed
jmir1992 2 days ago
@eleminatus (cont 2) This is one of the reasons why the bible is not as straight forward as you suggest. And don't worry I will not make the same mistake. I will list my intentions before responding to a seemingly honest and respectful comment. I did not run of arguments, but perhaps I ran out of patience. I have no interest in debating atheists on youtube who jack off to this kind of unorganized and unintelligent 'debate.' Good night sir.
jmir1992 2 days ago
@jmir1992 so now you are just gonna denigrate my debating skills? How typical. The free dictionary does no such mistake of classifying words "understanding" and "interpret" into the same niche. They dont have the same meaning. If you think they do, then you are as deluded about semantics as you are about religion. You dont want to talk anymore? Fine. But the reasons for interpreting perfectly comprehensible text still stand!
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus (continued) Lastly, I would like to ask you: where do you think this discussion is going? I don't think I'll ever talk sense into you (nor do I intend to), and I think you feel the same about me. I don't care for this discussion. I was only replying to your comment by telling you what the church taught. But little did I know, you weren’t interested in that, you were just looking to pick a fight with a stranger on youtube. I could care less if you're and atheist. Good for you I guess.
jmir1992 2 days ago
@jmir1992 ...and everything encompassing it. Before you assume the love and perfection of your god, you must explain his blood thirst and cruelty first.
Most of the bible is not subject to interpretation. Interpretation is forced upon it for a mere reason of defense. That is the only way to defend biblical errors and atrocities.
PS Matthew was written decades after Jesus died. Did Jesus ever ask for churches?
eleminatus 2 days ago
@jmir1992 most of the bible is rules and teachings with clearly stated messages. But for some reason religious people attempt to interpret them and change the original meaning. Why? Because most of the bible is nonsensical. With factual, historical or scientific errors, or outdated moral principles all you can do is interpret it for a sole purpose of pulling some kind of sense out of it. So dont tell me I dont understand your silly little book, I know it much better then you do!
eleminatus 2 days ago
@jmir1992 oh, and one last detail - neither Jesus nor Yahweh ever said anything about building churches. Or about interpreting their words (assuming bible is the word of god). You just assume you know better!
eleminatus 2 days ago
@eleminatus Does Matthew 16:18-19 ring any bell from your old protestant days?
jmir1992 2 days ago
@jmir1992: "And if you don’t believe that, then neither you nor Harris have any business telling me what the bible teaches..."
What an utterly stupid and arrogant statement. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean we have to. Especially if we find your beliefs to be unsupported by fact.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces I don't see why you have to be so agressive to a stranger on the internet. I thought atheists boasted of being more charitable than religious people. And secondly, I get the aweful impression that you are taking this out of context...
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992
You might have heard some atheists boast that but please don't tar all atheists with the same brush based on some small mindedness. It shouldn't be a case of 'us verses them'. It should be a case of "here are the facts and this is what we know".
SamCoreJ 1 day ago
@jmir1992: It's not my fault you made a ridiculous claim. And what the hell does that have to do with being charitable?
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces Please tell me what my claim was. And I know it's not your fault, what kind of response is that?
Being charitable has to do with how respectful you are to others. I don't know you and you don't know me, but yet you accuse me of being "utterly stupid and arrogant." Is that how you treat people you don't know?
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992: I think the one out of context is you.
You claim that no one has the right to tell you about the bible if we don't believe it. That is ridiculous almost by default. Belief is not required for understanding.
I did not accuse you of being arrogant and stupid. I said your statement was. Can't you make the distinction?
I treat people I don't know with the same level of respect that they do. You have challenged our right to speak out against bad beliefs after you made it public.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces I am sorry, but you are wrong about my claim (just as I thought). The person I had been discussing with had said that biblical interpretation was relative. Then I said that, if that is the case, he has no business telling me what it says, for that would just be another relative interpretation. And telling someone that their comment is stupid is also an insult to the author of the comment. It's and indirect insult, but an insult nonetheless.
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992: Actually, he has every right to tell you his interpretation of what it says. If you expect your own relative interpretation to be valid, you must concede that he has a right to express his. You're on a public forum, you should expect this.
So you're insulted. Cry me a river. My goodness, you're on the internet, dude. Grow thicker skin.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces Again, you don't get it. I didn't claim that biblical interpretation was relative (I don't believe it is), he did. And I told him that IF it is then why should I care if he or harris interpret the bible as a book of injustice. Its all relative, so why is one interpretation better than the other? There not. If it was relative I wouldn't expect my interpretation to be more valid either.
And its not that I am offended, I was simply surprised by your lack of courtsey.
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992: Actually, it is relative. You may not believe it to be so, but if this were not the case, then why are there so many different beliefs about it? Just look at all the christian denominations that exist and you should be able to deduce that it is indeed the case. And guess what — your interpretation is not any more valid indeed.
You shouldn't be surprised. You're on YouTube discussing religion.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces I believe that out of all the interpretations of the bible one of them has to be right, and all the other ones wrong. Furthermore, I don't claim to 100% know what the TRUE interpretation is. All I know is that if it's relative, as you and many other atheists claim, no one's interpreation has any serious validity and therefore it is stupid to bring them up in arguments against religion.
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992: Well, I believe almost none of them to be true. Since each religion has elements that contradict one another, obviously not all of them could be right. However, all of them could certainly be wrong.
The question is, since you don't claim to have absolute certainty on which interpretation is correct, how do we determine which is right and which is wrong? This is where religion must concede the use the best system for making such determinations: science and logic.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces I agree, in order to determine if there is a right religion one has to use science, but also philosophy, not just logic (which is only one branch of philosophy). Only then can men decide if there is a right religion, or no religion at all. But it really does bother me when people assume the authority to claim that it's all relative. There is no reason why any belief system (atheism included) is better than another if it's all relative, there is just no room to argue.
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992: Just so you know, atheism is not a belief system. It is a rejection of a claim. But that doesn't expand your point or mine. Atheists (and I think everyone) has their own personal belief system, which would point towards the likelihood that all belief systems can indeed be subjective to each individual.
If indeed, any belief system is relative, then there really isn't justifiable reason to continue the argument since it gets us nowhere. Interestingly enough, people do so anyway.
chinopisces 1 day ago
@chinopisces Yep, I agree that if it's all relative then there is no need for argument.
I consider atheism to be a belief system because it does require a type of faith. Even Dawkins admitted that he cannot 100% know that God doesn't exist, but nevertheless he chooses to believe he doesn't. And chooses to believe that science will one day figure it all out, although he does not have 100% proof that it will. I see atheism as faith in the other direction. I hope I'm making sense.
jmir1992 1 day ago
@jmir1992 Atheism is not a belief system, a philosophy, or a claim, it does not require faith.
No one can know anything 100% for sure, however you can determine what is probable and what isn't. It is incredibly improbable that a god exists. The god of the bible that most people believe in can not exist due to logical impossibilities in the definition of such a god (all powerful, all knowing, all-benevolent).
Fortune2point0 1 day ago