This was a good debate. By PZ Myers's behavior one can quite understand his words. "XXI century, Bible crap, silly people, nonsense talk, you should be embarassed to spend his time to talk about this, he will have fun and learn with it..." This guy's self image is so inflated that he will never be able to see something greater than it.
To end the debate the truth is you can't prove God doesn't exist but you can just not believe in Him... for now. Meyers acknowledges this truth as he has stated so don't get upset cause he doesn't believe. We will all find out when we die and I'm sure we are all excited to find out!
myers ,WING NUT SCIENCE ? so YOU say .what about all that think YOUR science is WING NUT science ? when you can present arguments with out the ridicule and slander you MAY be on to something that is credible .MAYBE !
not one prophecy has ever been disproved .to say that fulfilled prophecy is the result of people writing the answers a hundred years later is interesting to say the least .what will happen when you see a one world government and currency .those were for foretold in days gone by ,care to explain those one off mr myers .
mr. myers ! BIBLE bullshit ? you don't believe in the bible .
so your opinion is superior ? well some people don't believe in your stand .
RIDICULE IS NOT A FACT that should be in a debate .as you have missed this in all your higher education, study PROFESSIONALISM it will help you lose the ridicule part
i am amazed that all of the big time atheists open with ridicule and slander ,kinda like the emperors new clothes and the people who said they looked good .
all of myers dna examples lead no where for me as they can still be explained by a common intelligent designer (at least this is how i see the two arguments )
between the two i would have to say the KIRK has presented the better argument in this debate regardless of the two stands on this topic.WELL DONE KIRK .
OMFG, I just start watching this debate and Kirk Durston STARTS with the argument that has been debunked so many times its no longer even funny and then follows it up with the utterly retarded fine tuning argument.
I can sense PZ sitting at the side just facepalming every word this idiot lets escape from his mouth.
I sure hope PZ just destroys him when he gets to talk. This is just vile and not worthy the title of a debater.
PZ makes himself look like a foul mouthed, ignorant, genuinely angry human being in this debate . Ive noticed in many of his debates hes often short tempered and commonly uses foul language. If i were atheist i would be ashamed and embarrassed of PZ's performance
the Atheist doesn't have any hard evidence towards his argument. Just because their are other ridiculous sounding religions doesn't mean that theirs is no god it just means that people think of their own way to explain the way it began.I personally believe in the bible.
Christians often forget that the Bible, Jesus and God are all 100% MAN-MADE inventions. It was MAN who created God, not the other way around!
Of course Believers can't see this very simple fact because they've invested their entire lives in to the lies they've convinced themselves of. So to us rational folks, it's a no-brainer that there's no God!
The silliness of the Creationist arguments is laughable.
I've always wondered this:
Why instead of being 'Born-Again', don't you guys just GROW UP?!
It's kind of amusing to watch Believers make their PREPOSTEROUS points trying to prove God. It's amazing to me how IRRATIONAL their suppositions are and how silly the points they are against Science. While there's hundreds of such of these debates, the atheists ALWAYS slaughter the Believers.
I liken Believers to extreme Hoarders, who like the hoarder are unable to see the very obvious problem with their silly and preposterous superstitious MAN-MADE beliefs.
I thought PZ Myers was suppose to be some influential Atheist? Insulting and minimizing people who believe in God? Get real Dr. Myers, if its so obvious God doesn't exist - then why was your debate all rhetoric and insults?
The atheists don't have an answer for nature, they don't even have a complete and coherent explanation for how it operates. They compare Christian philosophy with ancient myths of their choosing, while completely ignoring it's arguments and evidence. Then they provide nothing in it's absence. Darwinism is truly a poisonous idea. Look at this clown Myers, he makes me sick.
@circusOFprecision -- BUT: you forget that atheists don't NEED an answer for Nature! They have Science, and the Laws of Physics, which PERFECTLY explain just about everything in our Universe. And while there is much that Science hasn't discovered and many unanswered questions, the ONLY way us humans learn about our Universe is through the Scientific Method, we don't have religion to thank for ANYTHING we've ever learned, in fact, religion does the exact OPPOSITE, it' a reason to become STUPID!
You should listen to the theist in this debate (apparently you didn't). Simply assuming that the laws of physics exist and are what they are is irrational. Science has demonstrated time and time again that the universe at large, and life in particular are intelligent processes. Why are they intelligent? We are we intelligent? Religion evolves just like science. Neither one is stupid, people are just irrational. You seem to want to demonstrate that fact badly.
@circusOFprecision -- I DID listen, which is why I found his irrational method of 'debate' so inept.
Religion is the OPPOSITE of evolution. When we are dogmatic, we close the door on everything that invites critical thinking and rational thought. It's the most closed-minded point of view there IS! That is just one of the reasons why no Creationist will EVER win a debate against an atheist.
Religion is not the opposite of evolution. In fact there are several religions (Darwinism being the most recent) that are based entirely upon evolution. You have the right to your opinions, but I must say they are ill informed. No Creationist? How about a theist then? Theists win debates all of the time. While we are at it, PZ Myers is probably the worst atheist debater I have ever heard. He appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and commits the genetic fallacy constantly.
@circusOFprecision -Darwinism isn't religion! Darwin was a MAN who wrote a book that Scientists have used to prove Evolution. Creationists often forget that THERE IS NO DEBATE within the Scientific community about Evolution, because it has been very much proven through the fossil record.
I WILL admit that the atheist in his silly debate is very bad, I could have SLAUGHTERED the idiot theist in this video in 5 min.
But I truly didn't listen to most of it, yawn I know the truth!
Christianity isn't a religion. Christ was a MAN who did things priests have used to prove Creation. Does that make any sense? That's exactly what you said about Darwinism.
There is extensive debate about evolution, it's just not apparent to popular culture.
You know the truth? Don't be so sure. You don't even seem to understand the issues on a deep intellectual level. But since I am a theist, it's doubtful you would want to listen to me.
@circusOFprecision -- No, it doesn't make any sense. And that's NOT what I said. I said that Darwinism isn't a religion and I'm right. Christianity IS a religion.
The reality is that we are ALL Agnostic in the sense that none of us can prove or disprove there's a God, but on a purely rational level, the Christian idea of God is the most PREPOSTEROUS ideology of all of them. Probably next to the Church of the Divine Arachnid who believe a Giant Spider in space created man as a joke.
Nothing is more preposterous than Darwinism. One of the reasons is of course the fact that Darwinists tend to deny that Darwinism is a religion. They tend to believe Darwinism is science, which is utterly false. This leads to scientism, where science is conflated with secular philosophy and religious views. It's a downward spiral into the ridiculous. Before you bash another religion, you should examine your own world view.
What is preposterous about organisms passing on heritable traits differentially, resulting in changes in phenotype and genotype oer time?
!50 years of Biology has only confirmed it, and you yourself admit common ancestry, which you haven't been able to explain--or even describe--in any other way.
@circusOFprecision -- That's got to be one of the most RIDICULOUS things I've ever heard. 'Darwinism' and Evolution aren't even REMOTELY like religion in any way whatsoever. Darwin was a Scientist and his beliefs had NOTHING to do with Theism, God or faith. He is the father of modern Evolution and through his writings, Science has expanded and learned everything we know about how species evolve on the planet. Creationists often forget that there's no debate within Science about evolution=FACT!
Evolutionary theory is not a religion, it's a theory. Darwinism is a religion. There are alternative theories of evolution that are NOT Darwinian. However, evolutionary theory is still based upon Darwinism, at least that is how it is taught. And yes, Darwinism is a religion for some people, they even admit it. Also, there IS a debate within science about evolution, but it isn't simply creation vs. evolution. You should explore it yourself.
@circusOFprecision - Again, Darwinism isn't even REMOTELY like a religion in any sense of the word, and anyone who suggests it is or that says they're a 'Darwinian' and it's a religion simply doesn't understand what the definition of religion is. I suggest you explore that definition and inform yourself.
And while there are many different kinds of evolution, when we talk about the evolution of biological systems, science has VERY MUCH proven that all species evolve, which is change through time.
Darwinism in it's purest form is metaphysics, no matter how anti-supernatural it may be. It attempts to provide alternative answers to the same questions raised by religion. It is dogmatic and it is reinforced by atheism and naturalism. Don't feel comfortable calling it a religion? Than call it a philosophy with a cult following.
Yes, species change over time. So what? It's not a revelation.
@circusOFprecision How utterly incorrect. Evolution deals specifically with the very observable changes in gene frequencies over time. Species change, this change continually occurs and accrues.
Do you understand that you're more genetically homologous to your parents than to your grandparents?
@circusOFprecision -- Darwinism = metaphysical?? Don't be silly! There's nothing abstract about Origin of the Species, it's very concrete and I'm not sure where you get the 'cult following' -- I would expect you say the same thing about the theory of gravity? And the only idiots who seem to think the Evolution is a 'revelation' are Creationists who suggest 'God' made everything in 6 days! There are none so LOONEY as religious and creationists and "intelligent Design" disciples.
Wow. Anyways, keep bashing the religious and keep pretending that your position is somehow self evident and proven. That will get you real far in life.
@circusOFprecision -- Thanks! It HAS gotten me really far in life! Understanding REALITY has made me a more intelligent person. Perhaps if you had the ability to think rationally and logically, you may also get as far in life as I have. ;->)
I think your first step would be to get an EDUCATION (even a GED) and perhaps when you've proven to me that you have even an elementary and basic education, we can begin the process of deprogramming you in to a sane and rational human!
@ColonPal I've studied Software Engineering, and i know many who have. One who's grown-up in a society hateful towards any Theistic beliefs, is SURE to became as such, EVEN if having achieved intellectual awareness of much in existence.
Clearly, the Atheistic debater in this debate is evident of someone who is brainwashed.
Just pay attention to how he doesn't want to argue for his beliefs, but rather for why he hates Theism - as if all hate is an argument.
@MrVirtualCoder -'Brainwashed'?? In what way does he even remotely seem 'brainwashed'? Atheist is the ABSENCE of beliefs and brainwashing, so if anyone is brainwashed, it's the LOONEY and PREPOSTEROUS arguments from Creationists who so stupidly present their laughable ideology and expect us rational and intelligent folks not to LAUGH at them!
I have no desire to listen to this debate. The topic honestly doesn't excite or interest me in the least. My hobby is making religious people look foolish!
@MrVirtualCoder -- Such a TYPICAL and arrogant Creationist retort! I took Philosophy in college, which is one of the reasons I'm a devout Satanist, which is basically based on Nietzsche. Who despised religion in all of it's genocidal forms.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
@MrVirtualCoder -- So, perhaps maybe it's YOU who should go back to school. They would at least inform you that 'Intelligent Design' is neither intelligent, scientific, or even a theory!
Listening to atheists debate with Creationists though, to me is a complete waste of time because the facts remain the same: No Creationist will EVER be able to prove their irrational and delusional declarations.
@odinata I've never asserted that i HATE ANYONE whom do not share my THEISTIC beliefs - and I'll make it, once again, evident that i am fine with your Atheistic-RELIGIOUS beliefs, regardless of how inconsistent they are with reason, logic, and our reality.
I've written the words i want you to emphasize on, in plain capital letters - in case you are mentally retarded.
@circusOFprecision -- Religious people like to call atheism, agnosticism, or darwinism 'religion' because they think it makes their preposterous arguments seem more rational, but atheism require NO FAITH whatsoever, and neither does evolution.
Darwinism is a religion. Why don't you do some research on it. Many people disagree with you. The fact that you can dismiss the obvious intelligence of this universe and believe that there is no intelligence behind it certainly requires faith. At least admit your own faith and beliefs, it's not like people don't know. Pretending doesn't keep you safe. It's like you are ashamed of your true thoughts and beliefs.
@circusOFprecision Athiesm is a world-view moreover a religion, we can all agree on that. And as WLC said, the "absence of belief" is merely a part of one's mental state, and NOT Atheism as a term describing beliefs and views on the world.
On Hitler. Nazi soldiers had "Gott Mitt Uns" (God With Us) inscribed on their belt buckles. Just Google it and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of images of the buckles.
On the Big Bang Theory. "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe...". "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," - Stephen Hawking
"Explosion of Christianity". Says who? I'd always heard that the rise of Christianity was slow over hundreds of years.
@SylG73 ""Explosion of Christianity". Says who? I'd always heard that the rise of Christianity was slow over hundreds of years"
Consider all the epistles Paul wrote... they were sent to christians churches spread throughout the whole empire. These epistles were written between c.50 and 67 AD.
Plus, consider the fact that the Emperor Nero, in the heart of the Empire (Rome), accused CHRISTIANS of setting the fire that ravaged the city... He accused this group of people in 64 AD!!
@SylG73 The evidence is supported by the fact that Nero accused CHRISTIANS in ROME. This proves that "christians" were more than just a couple of scattered individuals, they constituted a real treat to the emperor, as early as 64 AD!!
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
What a sad world view... That kind of mentality only blocks further knowledge, futher investigation. You'll get nowhere without some kind of leap of faith. Do you TRUST your wife?
@Gazdo01 -- And it just so happens that Christians STILL represent a real threat to everything that is rational and logical with their preposterous superstitions.
Faith-based organizations represent everything I see wrong with the world, while Scientific and Secular based groups give us things like cures for diseases and higher standards of living, while faith-based organizations give us stuff like the KKK, the Nazi's, Prop8 and GEORGE BU$H!
It's a no-brainer which of the 2 really help society!
@Gazdo01 -- You can rattle off names until you're blue in the face and you won't make Creationism or God ONE BIT Scientific. In fact, the entire charade of 'Intelligent Design' got LAUGHED out of the Supreme Court because it lacked one IOTA of Scientific method or thought.
The PREPOSTEROUS idea that 'if something is complicated, it had to have an equally or more complicated 'creator'" is so silly and UN-scientific, I would call it SCIENCE FICTION!
@ColonPal "you won't make Creationism or God ONE BIT Scientific"
1. That wasn't my objective. I was proving that your generalisation of religious people was utterly false
2. Who said God can be scientifically proven? If God is not a material being, then who would propose an empiral demonstation to try and "prove" his existence? You got to get out of the playground, friend, and start thinking straight
3. Only a minority of Christians believe in the creationism you're referring to
@Gazdo01 --HaHA! Who said God can be proven?! That is only the crux of the entire debate and subject matter of this silly video. Theists claim they can prove God, yet not a SINGLE one of them has managed to do so and they've only had a little over 2000 years.
The other point I was going to make was this: SURELY, if God were a real being, AT LEAST ONE Believer would have been able to conclusively prove it. There would have been a 'miracle' that proved it, or some form of photographic evidence.
@ColonPal "HaHA! Who said God can be proven?! That is only the crux of the entire debate"
I said SCIENTIFICALLY proven. Can you read?
"SURELY, if God were a real being, AT LEAST ONE Believer would have been able to conclusively prove it."
That not at all obvious, since God is not a material being. Therefore, you can't "prove" him with empirical methods. In other words, God doesn't fit in a test tube.
@ColonPal "HaHA! Who said God can be proven?! That is only the crux of the entire debate"
I said SCIENTIFICALLY proven. Can you read?
"SURELY, if God were a real being, AT LEAST ONE Believer would have been able to conclusively prove it."
That not at all obvious, since God is not a material being. Therefore, you can't "prove" him with empirical methods. In other words, God doesn't fit in a test tube.
@ColonPal "There would have been a 'miracle' that proved it, or some form of photographic evidence."
If you could PROVE or obtain clear EVIDENCE for God, then it wouldn't be call faith anymore. You wouldn't even be free to believe or not.
If God just showed Himself, then we couldn't make any difference between the REAL faithfull and the other false followers. There would be no merit for the people who put their faith in the Lord.
PZ Myer thinks we are just happy monkeys. There is nothing, implicit in his worldview, stopping him from putting us all in zoos. So while you are whining about people who have obviously abused Christianity, take a good look at your own camp and what they actually believe.
@circusOFprecision -- Humans are probably the lowliest of all earth's creatures. So, I would have to passionately agree with him. And I'm not whining about people who've abused Christianity, I'm COMMENDING THEM for a job well done!
Doesn't take much intelligence to look at the sum total of Xianity and see how incredibly F-d up it makes people.
Our planet could use a whole lot MORE kindness and mercy and a whole lot LESS Biblical 'Morality'!
@ColonPal "And it just so happens that Christians STILL represent a real threat to everything that is rational and logical with their preposterous superstitions. Faith-based organizations represent everything I see wrong with the world, while Scientific and Secular based groups give us things like cures for diseases and higher standards of living"
You do realize, friend, that this kind of statement in itself is not a scientific one, but merely a philosophical claim.
@ColonPal If it's merely your "opinion", you shouldn't be sharing in on a public channel, specially when you're going to be rude with people who disagree with you. If you don't have the decency to engage in a polite debate, then leave.
@Gazdo01 -- Or for that matter, perhaps YOU shouldn't be sharing your opinions in a public forum. I'll share any GODDAMNED thing I would like. And I don't have to be polite to the arrogant and mindless 'believers' who don't have the capacity to be honest.
I don't have the patience for terminal liars and fools.
Besides, I've already left, there is nothing in this thread that really even interests me. I just think it's important sometimes for Christians to know what SANE people think about them!
I find it staggering that Dr Myers' doesn't notice how hypocritical he is when he gets very personally offended when he takes Dr Durston's argument that atheism, as a core belief, is destructive and then misapplies it to mean "all atheists are evil" when he's been harping on for thirty minutes about how religious people are inherently stupid, childish, and ignorant.
@SylG73 Believing it to be false doesn't make it false either. And how does it logically follow that because it was written by human beings that it's false? You're claim that "there is no God" is also written by a human being, so to be consistent I guess you must reject that as well.
wow PZ myers opening statement is really quite shocking and ignorant... Maybe he should stick to his biology studies, His philosophical skills are equivalent to the philosophical skill of like .... Joe Rogan or something .
lol rite after good evidence for Gods existence based on historical events and nature. PZ starts his argument defending against a God of the gaps opponent ** total fail **
@iluminandoscholar "PZ starts his argument defending against a God of the gaps opponent ** total fail ** "
Actually, he was explicitly following the debate format, which forbade comments on the first speaker's statements. And of course, what you regard as good evidence is perceived by the opposition as utterly laughable. I mean, even pointing at testimony as evidence that magic exists demonstrates that you have no clue what the nature of evidence is.
@Gnomefro lol dude calm down i have made no decision on what to believe yet. I'm actually quiet fond of debates i probably watch like 3 or 4 hours of debates a day. and from my point of view the atheist in this debate was just week. and from your comments i just learned that you need to know how to follow a debate. your just like that atheist in a way using your emotions and what not.
@iluminandoscholar Here's the reason why there is no reason to trust the reports of Magic Jesus: A miracle is by definition a naturally impossible event. That is the entire reason it's regarded as evidence for the supernatural. Naturally impossible events are, at best, the least likely explanation for the origin of any such testimony. All alternatives, such as being mistaken, fraud, stories changing over time etc are more likely by definition and thus belief is irrational.
@iluminandoscholar I'm sorry if this offends the gullible portion of humanity, but it really is true that you are a moron if you believe miracle claims due to testimony. You also can not do this consistently, because you must reject the miracle claims of competing religions, via the reasoning that they are unlikely to be true, to avoid holding a contradictory worldview. That you still refer to the nonsense you believe for inconsistent reasons as "good evidence" is just amusing
@SASSJMSCBC "the problem I see is that even If the bible is false, that does not prove that we not need a timeless and causeless for the origin of the universe."
No, it just proves that Christianity is false. If all you know about your origin of the universe is that it's timeless and causeless you're well within the boundaries of Naturalism. The naturalistic definition of "nature" has no origin and asking for one is like asking "Who made God?" and actually expecting an answer.
@SASSJMSCBC It's also worth mentioning that when one is using the words universe and nature as distinct entities, where the universe has an origin and is distinct from a nature that does not(or is distinct from "all that exists including God" in the theistic version) one is adopting a terminology that is incredibly dangerous with respect to equivocation. It's usually much better to talk about "nature", because showing spacetime began does not even begin to support the supernatural.
Dr PZ Myers is a disrespectful idiot who shouldn't be debating in the first place. He cannot refute ANY of the claims made by Dr. Kirk and therefor has to use Ad-Hominem argumentation to actually get the moron-based audience to agree with him. He misinterprets, deliberately, what Dr. Kirk was implying, and then spews it all over the audience.
True scientists should be ashamed for having Him listed as a "scientists", and Kirk deserves better than this moron.
This isn't even close. Dr Durston is clearly the more scholarly, intelligent, and well-mannered of the two. Dr Myers is ridiculous in both his comprehension of the debate, and his contempt for it, continually confusing dismissal for refutation.
It is a shame that this debate wasn't participated by a serious atheist who would approach the arguments in a formal and reasonable way. The atheist saturated his presentation with insults and ridicule and clearly spent his time trying to win friendship approval with the audience more than setting any diligent attention to the debate at hand.
@circusOFprecision -- Grasp what argument? All Dawkins presents is fact, while silly believers try in vain to make him stumble, very stupidly, I might add.
If Creationists TRULY believed in their own nonsense, they wouldn't feel the need to convince everyone else of their silly beliefs because the facts would speak for themselves. All Dawkins has ever done is point his contenders to their own irrational selves.
@reformedman That's why I don't approve of that approach. Ridicule tends to shock or anger religious people to the point at which they don't hear any of the solid points inbetween. In Meyer's opening there were long periods of factual discussion with no jokes, but somehow you've come away from this believing that he's not serious. I think he mis-managed his time rather badly so the opening finshed too abruptly, but he still made plenty of valid points that you seem to have missed.
@tecciztucatl no, he didn't make any valid points. They are all refutable. I agree with you that he mis-managed his time and I have heard better defenses from atheists but in all my years I have never heard a good positive assertion by an atheist. If you have ever heard of a good positive argument FOR atheism, please post a link.
@reformedman It depends what you mean by "atheism". My identity is composed of many parts: being an atheist is just one of them, and certainly not the most important. Being Christian is often the big one for people of that faith which might account for any confusion.
Atheism is not the assertion that God doesn't exist. Religious people all over the world claim that a God or Gods exist; atheists simply reject those claims on the basis that they lack evidence and good reason.
@tecciztucatl There is where you are wrong; you are using an incorrect definition of atheism and if you'd like we can rename things and then claim wrong things about them. For example, I will rename my Honda as a Ferrari and tell everyone I own a Ferrari. Obviously this is wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It positively asserts this.
What you have mislabeled is called Agnosticism which is a lack of belief either way. Atheism is a positive attitude of the absence of God.
@reformedman A-theism = non-theism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge (gnosis is greek for knowledge), so a gnostic theist claims to know for a fact that there is a god. I would be an agnostic atheist because, although I don't believe god exists, I am not certain. Agnosticism as you mentioned it is a common colloquial misunderstanding of terms - please look at the etymology of the words in question.
@reformedman In addition, there's no clear definition of what it is to be Christian; there are so many different sects upholding different doctrines, often even decrying the other sects as non-Christian. I would not presume to tell you which of the multitude of different versions of your faith defines you, so, as the one to whom the label "atheist" applies, I shall define precisely what it means to be one, according to the precise linguistic definitions in my previous comment.
@tecciztucatl Why did you just change the subject? We were just talking about a request to hear a good positive argument for atheism and you just replied with there are a lot of denominations in Christianity. Are you kidding me?
@reformedman No. We differ on the very definitions of the words we're using so how can we possibly have any kind of cogent discussion without first agreeing on what it is we're actually talking about. If you're interested in communication rather than a shouting match then please have another look at my previous two messages. I hope you can see why I define atheism the way I do, and why I reject your definition.
@tecciztucatl Your definition is worthless. I use the theological dictionaries to define theological terms. I don't ask a layman or novice what he thinks atheism means.
@reformedman Ah. Well, just as I wouldn't define your faith for you, I would NEVER call your definition of a part of your identity worthless. Is that how you think Christ would have spoken to a non-believer?
I call myself atheist, you call me agnostic. We'll have to agree to differ because you're appealing to your special dictionary as though it were infallible. So as an agnostic; someone unconvinced God exists, why do you think I should believe your God exists and not say, Allah?
@tecciztucatl I am appealing to my 'special' dictionary? Sir, you are just mumbling now. Look at the Oxford English Dictionary and see the usuage of affirm and attest when it defines atheism. Look at Webster, look at other reputable dictionaries.
Your definition is worthless BECAUSE you just made it up.
With regard to how Jesus would relate with your rebellion, research how Jesus related to the Pharisees; people who didn't believe in him.
@reformedman The top few from google: "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings", "a disbelief in the existence of a deity", "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". I did not make it up.
The Pharisees were the extremists of their day: only a small group of people followed Christ during his life and yet he treated the lowest of the non-believers with respect and compassion. Being judgemental and arrogant was not part of his message.
@reformedman Good refutation of my argument about your apparent failure as a Christian. Also, why assume that online dictionaries are necessarily poor sources? Just cause something's been set down on paper, such as in your 'theological' (i.e. highly biased) dictionary, doesn't make it credible.
I've had numerous productive discussions with people of all faiths - I tried to reason with you but you've tried to make a fight at every step of the way. This is getting silly.
@tecciztucatl Correct! It's been silly from the start. I ask you for an assertive positive arguement for atheism, you respond you don't need one. I explain that atheism is the positive affirmation that God does NOT exist and I use the Oxford English Dictionary, to which you respond, that's not your personal opinion of the word and you find it defined by a blogger on google defined the way you like. I agree, don't converse with me, I use rational logic which is ofcourse silly.
@reformedman Actually atheism is the disbelief in god, which is not a positive position. Atheism does not require evidence because lack of acceptance of a positive claim (god exists) is the default position until evidence is presented.
@reformedman I used three online dictionaries: one of them was the Merriam-Webster which in fact had BOTH definitions: "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity". I don't believe for a second that your definition is the ONLY one the OED gave.
I do admit that some atheists are as you define it ('strong' or 'gnostic' atheists for me) in that they claim to know god doesn't exist, but I've never met anyone that arrogant or silly. All... (cont)
@reformedman ...the atheists I know merely disbelieve the claims of theists, and I think they're in the majority. I tried to acknowledge your definition - as far as you're concerned my thoughts denote an agnostic, but whether we use my label or yours I am not asserting God doesn't exist. Technically it's your duty to convince me (1 Peter 3:15) but I'm won't hold you to it because "But do this with gentleness and respect" clearly means very little to you.
@tecciztucatl 1. "The atheists I know..." are what is called soft atheists which is another form of agnosticism.
2. "I am not asserting God doesn't exist..." you sir, are an agnostic.
3. "Technically it's your duty...." you misquoted or misunderstood 1Peter 3:15. The verse actually refers to 'responding' or 'answering' when someone inquires and is interested. You are not doing either, you instead, are interested in diverting issues.
@reformedman This is weird. I try to cover every point you raise, make concessions when appropriate, and generally try to advance the discussion. Can't you even acknowledge that words can have more than one definition? What IS the complete entry in the OED on atheism? Also I already said I'm an agnostic by your definition, and asked you several messages ago why your God is more plausible than, for example, Allah - that was a genuine question that I don't have the answer for.
@tecciztucatl I would whole-heartedly make concessions in our conversation if I felt that something I said could be conceded but honestly, I think you have to admit, I have not said anything against standard acceptation within philosophical circles. OED does deliniate weak and strong atheism but the reason I didn't concede that point is because it is accepted that weak atheism is actually agnosticism. This leaves strong atheism as the only viable form of atheism.
@tecciztucatl part2 continuation.... Jehovah is more plausible than Allah because Jehovah made good his claim. There are contradictions in the Q'ran, Mohammed definitively wrote errors, and the historical proof of textual revision remove the Q'ran from credibility. The Christian Bible affirms the textual validity of the Hebrew Bible and the prophecies involved in the HebBib validate the Christian Bible all the while being a contrary group. The list of reasons is too long for 500 ch
I think the P. Z. Meyers guy just read the God Delusion and spouted out everything in the book. As usual he straw manned the theists arguments to nothing more than god of the gaps reasoning.
@ninetailschris I was looking forward to it because I heard about it. Why would it be a problem for me to want to see a debate? But I would agree, Myers got creamed.
This was a good debate. By PZ Myers's behavior one can quite understand his words. "XXI century, Bible crap, silly people, nonsense talk, you should be embarassed to spend his time to talk about this, he will have fun and learn with it..." This guy's self image is so inflated that he will never be able to see something greater than it.
feanando 5 days ago
To end the debate the truth is you can't prove God doesn't exist but you can just not believe in Him... for now. Meyers acknowledges this truth as he has stated so don't get upset cause he doesn't believe. We will all find out when we die and I'm sure we are all excited to find out!
McIntoshINC 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr. Kirk Durston opens - 7:48
Dr. P.Z. Meyers opens - 28:21
Mr. Kirk Durston rebuttal - 51:14
Dr. P.Z. Meyers rebuttal - 1:03:30
Mr. Kirk Durston closing remarks - 1:13:35
Dr. P.Z. Meyers closing remarks - 1:20:20
lxAgnosticxl 3 weeks ago
PZ Myers: "I don't always win the debate, but they never do."
Mikesapien 4 weeks ago
after this, I think PZ actually believes in God!
robertjunger 1 month ago
myers ,WING NUT SCIENCE ? so YOU say .what about all that think YOUR science is WING NUT science ? when you can present arguments with out the ridicule and slander you MAY be on to something that is credible .MAYBE !
pearsc5d 1 month ago
not one prophecy has ever been disproved .to say that fulfilled prophecy is the result of people writing the answers a hundred years later is interesting to say the least .what will happen when you see a one world government and currency .those were for foretold in days gone by ,care to explain those one off mr myers .
pearsc5d 1 month ago
mr. myers ! BIBLE bullshit ? you don't believe in the bible .
so your opinion is superior ? well some people don't believe in your stand .
RIDICULE IS NOT A FACT that should be in a debate .as you have missed this in all your higher education, study PROFESSIONALISM it will help you lose the ridicule part
pearsc5d 1 month ago
myers ! you are a master in twisting what was said .brovo ,you are a master twister .for this you do win .
pearsc5d 1 month ago
dr.pz.myers . please lose the ridicule and be a little more professional in your responses and it might begin to make sense .MAYBE ! .
pearsc5d 1 month ago
i am amazed that all of the big time atheists open with ridicule and slander ,kinda like the emperors new clothes and the people who said they looked good .
all of myers dna examples lead no where for me as they can still be explained by a common intelligent designer (at least this is how i see the two arguments )
between the two i would have to say the KIRK has presented the better argument in this debate regardless of the two stands on this topic.WELL DONE KIRK .
pearsc5d 1 month ago
@odinata ok just because some one is religious does not mean they are a bigot. and atheism is a religion
xPray2die2dayx 1 month ago
You are not an Atheist if you don't believe that Theism can be proven false...
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
PZ kept his cool longer then I could ever had XD
This debate gave me a headache of astronomical proportions.
enlightendbel 1 month ago
Comment removed
HyperEntity111 1 month ago
OMFG, I just start watching this debate and Kirk Durston STARTS with the argument that has been debunked so many times its no longer even funny and then follows it up with the utterly retarded fine tuning argument.
I can sense PZ sitting at the side just facepalming every word this idiot lets escape from his mouth.
I sure hope PZ just destroys him when he gets to talk. This is just vile and not worthy the title of a debater.
enlightendbel 1 month ago
PZ makes himself look like a foul mouthed, ignorant, genuinely angry human being in this debate . Ive noticed in many of his debates hes often short tempered and commonly uses foul language. If i were atheist i would be ashamed and embarrassed of PZ's performance
yhwhizlife1 1 month ago
That Christian guy was properly put in his place. Him and his telepathic imaginary friend. OMG.
SylG73 1 month ago
also not trying to sound like a hippi but its wrong to mess around with anythings dna its ment to work a certain way for a reason
EdrickAisen 1 month ago in playlist Apologetics
the Atheist doesn't have any hard evidence towards his argument. Just because their are other ridiculous sounding religions doesn't mean that theirs is no god it just means that people think of their own way to explain the way it began.I personally believe in the bible.
EdrickAisen 1 month ago in playlist Apologetics
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christ was a MAN who did things priests have used to prove Creation. "
A hahahhahahhaha! Uh huh.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure......
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christ was a MAN who did things priests have used to prove Creation. "
A hahahhahahhaha! Uh huh.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure......
odinata 1 month ago
Wow, the atheist guy was so embarrasing and so belittling!! He has no idea of how debates work! Simply ridiculous.
beto88keys 1 month ago
Christians often forget that the Bible, Jesus and God are all 100% MAN-MADE inventions. It was MAN who created God, not the other way around!
Of course Believers can't see this very simple fact because they've invested their entire lives in to the lies they've convinced themselves of. So to us rational folks, it's a no-brainer that there's no God!
The silliness of the Creationist arguments is laughable.
I've always wondered this:
Why instead of being 'Born-Again', don't you guys just GROW UP?!
ColonPal 1 month ago
It's kind of amusing to watch Believers make their PREPOSTEROUS points trying to prove God. It's amazing to me how IRRATIONAL their suppositions are and how silly the points they are against Science. While there's hundreds of such of these debates, the atheists ALWAYS slaughter the Believers.
I liken Believers to extreme Hoarders, who like the hoarder are unable to see the very obvious problem with their silly and preposterous superstitious MAN-MADE beliefs.
ColonPal 1 month ago
No Q&A?
NemoUtopian 1 month ago
I thought PZ Myers was suppose to be some influential Atheist? Insulting and minimizing people who believe in God? Get real Dr. Myers, if its so obvious God doesn't exist - then why was your debate all rhetoric and insults?
209vaughn 1 month ago
@209vaughn
The atheists don't have an answer for nature, they don't even have a complete and coherent explanation for how it operates. They compare Christian philosophy with ancient myths of their choosing, while completely ignoring it's arguments and evidence. Then they provide nothing in it's absence. Darwinism is truly a poisonous idea. Look at this clown Myers, he makes me sick.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision "The atheists don't have an answer for nature"
True... but it doesn't prove God...
"Darwinism is truly a poisonous idea."
The majority of Christians in the world believe in evolution...
But EVEN IF Darwinism were to be a "poisonous idea" (which I don't think it is), how would that be relevant in finding if it's true or not?
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- BUT: you forget that atheists don't NEED an answer for Nature! They have Science, and the Laws of Physics, which PERFECTLY explain just about everything in our Universe. And while there is much that Science hasn't discovered and many unanswered questions, the ONLY way us humans learn about our Universe is through the Scientific Method, we don't have religion to thank for ANYTHING we've ever learned, in fact, religion does the exact OPPOSITE, it' a reason to become STUPID!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
You should listen to the theist in this debate (apparently you didn't). Simply assuming that the laws of physics exist and are what they are is irrational. Science has demonstrated time and time again that the universe at large, and life in particular are intelligent processes. Why are they intelligent? We are we intelligent? Religion evolves just like science. Neither one is stupid, people are just irrational. You seem to want to demonstrate that fact badly.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- I DID listen, which is why I found his irrational method of 'debate' so inept.
Religion is the OPPOSITE of evolution. When we are dogmatic, we close the door on everything that invites critical thinking and rational thought. It's the most closed-minded point of view there IS! That is just one of the reasons why no Creationist will EVER win a debate against an atheist.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Religion is not the opposite of evolution. In fact there are several religions (Darwinism being the most recent) that are based entirely upon evolution. You have the right to your opinions, but I must say they are ill informed. No Creationist? How about a theist then? Theists win debates all of the time. While we are at it, PZ Myers is probably the worst atheist debater I have ever heard. He appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and commits the genetic fallacy constantly.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -Darwinism isn't religion! Darwin was a MAN who wrote a book that Scientists have used to prove Evolution. Creationists often forget that THERE IS NO DEBATE within the Scientific community about Evolution, because it has been very much proven through the fossil record.
I WILL admit that the atheist in his silly debate is very bad, I could have SLAUGHTERED the idiot theist in this video in 5 min.
But I truly didn't listen to most of it, yawn I know the truth!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Christianity isn't a religion. Christ was a MAN who did things priests have used to prove Creation. Does that make any sense? That's exactly what you said about Darwinism.
There is extensive debate about evolution, it's just not apparent to popular culture.
You know the truth? Don't be so sure. You don't even seem to understand the issues on a deep intellectual level. But since I am a theist, it's doubtful you would want to listen to me.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Christianity isn't a religion, but Biology is?
Why isn't there a dictionary on the planet that agrees with you?
Why are you giving lectures on "truth" when its more than obvious you can't discern it?
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Christianity isn't a religion."
You're stupidity never ceases to amaze.......
Nobody wants to listen to you.
Your assertions aren't just false, they are embarrassingly false.
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Christianity isn't a religion."
You're stupidity never ceases to amaze.......
Nobody wants to listen to you.
Your assertions aren't just false, they are embarrassingly false.
odinata 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Christianity isn't a religion."
You're stupidity never ceases to amaze.......
Nobody wants to listen to you.
Your assertions aren't just false, they are embarrassingly false.
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- No, it doesn't make any sense. And that's NOT what I said. I said that Darwinism isn't a religion and I'm right. Christianity IS a religion.
The reality is that we are ALL Agnostic in the sense that none of us can prove or disprove there's a God, but on a purely rational level, the Christian idea of God is the most PREPOSTEROUS ideology of all of them. Probably next to the Church of the Divine Arachnid who believe a Giant Spider in space created man as a joke.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Nothing is more preposterous than Darwinism. One of the reasons is of course the fact that Darwinists tend to deny that Darwinism is a religion. They tend to believe Darwinism is science, which is utterly false. This leads to scientism, where science is conflated with secular philosophy and religious views. It's a downward spiral into the ridiculous. Before you bash another religion, you should examine your own world view.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
What is preposterous about organisms passing on heritable traits differentially, resulting in changes in phenotype and genotype oer time?
!50 years of Biology has only confirmed it, and you yourself admit common ancestry, which you haven't been able to explain--or even describe--in any other way.
Why is that, circumOFcision?
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- That's got to be one of the most RIDICULOUS things I've ever heard. 'Darwinism' and Evolution aren't even REMOTELY like religion in any way whatsoever. Darwin was a Scientist and his beliefs had NOTHING to do with Theism, God or faith. He is the father of modern Evolution and through his writings, Science has expanded and learned everything we know about how species evolve on the planet. Creationists often forget that there's no debate within Science about evolution=FACT!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Evolutionary theory is not a religion, it's a theory. Darwinism is a religion. There are alternative theories of evolution that are NOT Darwinian. However, evolutionary theory is still based upon Darwinism, at least that is how it is taught. And yes, Darwinism is a religion for some people, they even admit it. Also, there IS a debate within science about evolution, but it isn't simply creation vs. evolution. You should explore it yourself.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
Don't know wht the defintion of "religion" is, eh?
That's not surprising.
You claim tht Christianity isn't a religion, which is downright MORONIC.
You claim that evolution is defined as an increase in "sophistication", which is downright moronic.
YOu just don't know what you are talking about.
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision - Again, Darwinism isn't even REMOTELY like a religion in any sense of the word, and anyone who suggests it is or that says they're a 'Darwinian' and it's a religion simply doesn't understand what the definition of religion is. I suggest you explore that definition and inform yourself.
And while there are many different kinds of evolution, when we talk about the evolution of biological systems, science has VERY MUCH proven that all species evolve, which is change through time.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Darwinism in it's purest form is metaphysics, no matter how anti-supernatural it may be. It attempts to provide alternative answers to the same questions raised by religion. It is dogmatic and it is reinforced by atheism and naturalism. Don't feel comfortable calling it a religion? Than call it a philosophy with a cult following.
Yes, species change over time. So what? It's not a revelation.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision How utterly incorrect. Evolution deals specifically with the very observable changes in gene frequencies over time. Species change, this change continually occurs and accrues.
Do you understand that you're more genetically homologous to your parents than to your grandparents?
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Did I say evolution? I said DARWINISM. How utterly dishonest of you to continue to conflate Darwinism with evolution.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision Evolution is the process by which all of life has diverged and the theory which explains this divergence.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- Darwinism = metaphysical?? Don't be silly! There's nothing abstract about Origin of the Species, it's very concrete and I'm not sure where you get the 'cult following' -- I would expect you say the same thing about the theory of gravity? And the only idiots who seem to think the Evolution is a 'revelation' are Creationists who suggest 'God' made everything in 6 days! There are none so LOONEY as religious and creationists and "intelligent Design" disciples.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Wow. Anyways, keep bashing the religious and keep pretending that your position is somehow self evident and proven. That will get you real far in life.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
Making assertions that are demonstrably false doesn't seem like a winning plan.....
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- Thanks! It HAS gotten me really far in life! Understanding REALITY has made me a more intelligent person. Perhaps if you had the ability to think rationally and logically, you may also get as far in life as I have. ;->)
I think your first step would be to get an EDUCATION (even a GED) and perhaps when you've proven to me that you have even an elementary and basic education, we can begin the process of deprogramming you in to a sane and rational human!
Sound like a deal?
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal I've studied Software Engineering, and i know many who have. One who's grown-up in a society hateful towards any Theistic beliefs, is SURE to became as such, EVEN if having achieved intellectual awareness of much in existence.
Clearly, the Atheistic debater in this debate is evident of someone who is brainwashed.
Just pay attention to how he doesn't want to argue for his beliefs, but rather for why he hates Theism - as if all hate is an argument.
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder -'Brainwashed'?? In what way does he even remotely seem 'brainwashed'? Atheist is the ABSENCE of beliefs and brainwashing, so if anyone is brainwashed, it's the LOONEY and PREPOSTEROUS arguments from Creationists who so stupidly present their laughable ideology and expect us rational and intelligent folks not to LAUGH at them!
I have no desire to listen to this debate. The topic honestly doesn't excite or interest me in the least. My hobby is making religious people look foolish!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal You need to go back to elementary school, stop watching TV, and take a course on Philosophy.
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder -- Such a TYPICAL and arrogant Creationist retort! I took Philosophy in college, which is one of the reasons I'm a devout Satanist, which is basically based on Nietzsche. Who despised religion in all of it's genocidal forms.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
ColonPal 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder -- So, perhaps maybe it's YOU who should go back to school. They would at least inform you that 'Intelligent Design' is neither intelligent, scientific, or even a theory!
Listening to atheists debate with Creationists though, to me is a complete waste of time because the facts remain the same: No Creationist will EVER be able to prove their irrational and delusional declarations.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder
Why do you hate any and every that don't share your religoius opinions?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata Hate? Religious opinion? Get a dictionary..
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder
So you are saying you don't hate everyone who doesn't share your religoius opinions?
Why do your posts indicate that you do?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata Anyone* And it's not "religious opinion" but rather "opinion"..
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder
So you hate *anyone* who doesn't share your *opinions*, religious or otherwise?
That doesn't seem productive.....
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata I've never asserted that i HATE ANYONE whom do not share my THEISTIC beliefs - and I'll make it, once again, evident that i am fine with your Atheistic-RELIGIOUS beliefs, regardless of how inconsistent they are with reason, logic, and our reality.
I've written the words i want you to emphasize on, in plain capital letters - in case you are mentally retarded.
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
@MrVirtualCoder
Why does not believing in magical beings that are completely undetectable cause you to hurl insults then?
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata Get a dictionary, grow up, and try to understand what your beliefs (i.e: scientific-naturalism) really is capable of..
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrVirtualCoder
How is a dictionary going to convince me that invisible sky daddies made a magical fruit that is going to send me to burn for eternity?
odinata 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- Religious people like to call atheism, agnosticism, or darwinism 'religion' because they think it makes their preposterous arguments seem more rational, but atheism require NO FAITH whatsoever, and neither does evolution.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Darwinism is a religion. Why don't you do some research on it. Many people disagree with you. The fact that you can dismiss the obvious intelligence of this universe and believe that there is no intelligence behind it certainly requires faith. At least admit your own faith and beliefs, it's not like people don't know. Pretending doesn't keep you safe. It's like you are ashamed of your true thoughts and beliefs.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision Athiesm is a world-view moreover a religion, we can all agree on that. And as WLC said, the "absence of belief" is merely a part of one's mental state, and NOT Atheism as a term describing beliefs and views on the world.
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Darwinism doesn't really have a lot to do with religion OR modern Biology.
Evolution happens, you acknowledge that it happens, and you have ZERO evidence for any supernatural beings.
Your perpetual trolling doesn't seem to change the reality of the situation.
Do you know why?
odinata 1 month ago
@209vaughn My thoughts exactly...I personally think he is so insecure about his belief that he resorted to insults.
beto88keys 1 month ago
We are all dinosaurs.
Mee551able 1 month ago
On Hitler. Nazi soldiers had "Gott Mitt Uns" (God With Us) inscribed on their belt buckles. Just Google it and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of images of the buckles.
On the Big Bang Theory. "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe...". "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," - Stephen Hawking
"Explosion of Christianity". Says who? I'd always heard that the rise of Christianity was slow over hundreds of years.
SylG73 1 month ago
@SylG73 ""Explosion of Christianity". Says who? I'd always heard that the rise of Christianity was slow over hundreds of years"
Consider all the epistles Paul wrote... they were sent to christians churches spread throughout the whole empire. These epistles were written between c.50 and 67 AD.
Plus, consider the fact that the Emperor Nero, in the heart of the Empire (Rome), accused CHRISTIANS of setting the fire that ravaged the city... He accused this group of people in 64 AD!!
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 And I see no shred of "evidence", no fact, no concrete number anywhere in your reply.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
SylG73 1 month ago
@SylG73 The evidence is supported by the fact that Nero accused CHRISTIANS in ROME. This proves that "christians" were more than just a couple of scattered individuals, they constituted a real treat to the emperor, as early as 64 AD!!
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
What a sad world view... That kind of mentality only blocks further knowledge, futher investigation. You'll get nowhere without some kind of leap of faith. Do you TRUST your wife?
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 -- And it just so happens that Christians STILL represent a real threat to everything that is rational and logical with their preposterous superstitions.
Faith-based organizations represent everything I see wrong with the world, while Scientific and Secular based groups give us things like cures for diseases and higher standards of living, while faith-based organizations give us stuff like the KKK, the Nazi's, Prop8 and GEORGE BU$H!
It's a no-brainer which of the 2 really help society!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal Friend, it's time you grow up and leave this puerile talk in the schoolyard...
Albert Magnus, Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Napier, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Boyle, Leibniz, Newton, Cauchy, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Plank, LeMaitre, Miller, Collins, Lennox, ETC ETC
These FINE SCIENTISTS were also devout christians, mostly Catholics... Sorry, but your point of view is valueless in front of the FACTS.
Gazdo01 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Gazdo01 -- You can rattle off names until you're blue in the face and you won't make Creationism or God ONE BIT Scientific. In fact, the entire charade of 'Intelligent Design' got LAUGHED out of the Supreme Court because it lacked one IOTA of Scientific method or thought.
The PREPOSTEROUS idea that 'if something is complicated, it had to have an equally or more complicated 'creator'" is so silly and UN-scientific, I would call it SCIENCE FICTION!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal "you won't make Creationism or God ONE BIT Scientific"
1. That wasn't my objective. I was proving that your generalisation of religious people was utterly false
2. Who said God can be scientifically proven? If God is not a material being, then who would propose an empiral demonstation to try and "prove" his existence? You got to get out of the playground, friend, and start thinking straight
3. Only a minority of Christians believe in the creationism you're referring to
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 --HaHA! Who said God can be proven?! That is only the crux of the entire debate and subject matter of this silly video. Theists claim they can prove God, yet not a SINGLE one of them has managed to do so and they've only had a little over 2000 years.
The other point I was going to make was this: SURELY, if God were a real being, AT LEAST ONE Believer would have been able to conclusively prove it. There would have been a 'miracle' that proved it, or some form of photographic evidence.
ColonPal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColonPal "HaHA! Who said God can be proven?! That is only the crux of the entire debate"
I said SCIENTIFICALLY proven. Can you read?
"SURELY, if God were a real being, AT LEAST ONE Believer would have been able to conclusively prove it."
That not at all obvious, since God is not a material being. Therefore, you can't "prove" him with empirical methods. In other words, God doesn't fit in a test tube.
"There would have been a 'miracle'"
We claim there has been miracles.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColonPal "HaHA! Who said God can be proven?! That is only the crux of the entire debate"
I said SCIENTIFICALLY proven. Can you read?
"SURELY, if God were a real being, AT LEAST ONE Believer would have been able to conclusively prove it."
That not at all obvious, since God is not a material being. Therefore, you can't "prove" him with empirical methods. In other words, God doesn't fit in a test tube.
"There would have been a 'miracle'"
We claim there has been miracles.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@ColonPal "There would have been a 'miracle' that proved it, or some form of photographic evidence."
If you could PROVE or obtain clear EVIDENCE for God, then it wouldn't be call faith anymore. You wouldn't even be free to believe or not.
If God just showed Himself, then we couldn't make any difference between the REAL faithfull and the other false followers. There would be no merit for the people who put their faith in the Lord.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@ColonPal
PZ Myer thinks we are just happy monkeys. There is nothing, implicit in his worldview, stopping him from putting us all in zoos. So while you are whining about people who have obviously abused Christianity, take a good look at your own camp and what they actually believe.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- Humans are probably the lowliest of all earth's creatures. So, I would have to passionately agree with him. And I'm not whining about people who've abused Christianity, I'm COMMENDING THEM for a job well done!
Doesn't take much intelligence to look at the sum total of Xianity and see how incredibly F-d up it makes people.
Our planet could use a whole lot MORE kindness and mercy and a whole lot LESS Biblical 'Morality'!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal "And it just so happens that Christians STILL represent a real threat to everything that is rational and logical with their preposterous superstitions. Faith-based organizations represent everything I see wrong with the world, while Scientific and Secular based groups give us things like cures for diseases and higher standards of living"
You do realize, friend, that this kind of statement in itself is not a scientific one, but merely a philosophical claim.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 -- I never said it was a Scientific claim or anything else, it's MY OPINION you idiot!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal If it's merely your "opinion", you shouldn't be sharing in on a public channel, specially when you're going to be rude with people who disagree with you. If you don't have the decency to engage in a polite debate, then leave.
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@Gazdo01 -- Or for that matter, perhaps YOU shouldn't be sharing your opinions in a public forum. I'll share any GODDAMNED thing I would like. And I don't have to be polite to the arrogant and mindless 'believers' who don't have the capacity to be honest.
I don't have the patience for terminal liars and fools.
Besides, I've already left, there is nothing in this thread that really even interests me. I just think it's important sometimes for Christians to know what SANE people think about them!
ColonPal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ColonPal "Or for that matter, perhaps YOU shouldn't be sharing your opinions in a public forum"
I don't. Everything I said is supported by FACTS (except for my last comment, but I had to choice because I wanted to give a response).
"And I don't have to be polite to the arrogant and mindless"
I've been arrogant and mindless?
"I don't have the patience for terminal liars and fools"
Then what are you doing on youtube listening to theists debates? Herod syndrome?
/watch?v=OOJjI5Yv5TU
Gazdo01 1 month ago
@SylG73 oh boy...another one quoting that silly quote by CH...too bad he was totally humilliated by WLC. No disrespect to Mr. Hitchens, though.
beto88keys 1 month ago
I find it staggering that Dr Myers' doesn't notice how hypocritical he is when he gets very personally offended when he takes Dr Durston's argument that atheism, as a core belief, is destructive and then misapplies it to mean "all atheists are evil" when he's been harping on for thirty minutes about how religious people are inherently stupid, childish, and ignorant.
Fett4 1 month ago
man put thing togethere?
Mee551able 1 month ago
Comment removed
empreme 1 month ago
The Bible was written by human beings. There is no God, and "believing" it to be a fact doesn't *make* it a fact.
SylG73 1 month ago
@SylG73 you missunderstand the concept of inspiration.
girtkaz 1 month ago
Comment removed
EmceeBorg 1 month ago
Comment removed
EmceeBorg 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SylG73 Believing it to be false doesn't make it false either. And how does it logically follow that because it was written by human beings that it's false? You're claim that "there is no God" is also written by a human being, so to be consistent I guess you must reject that as well.
EmceeBorg 1 month ago
lol PZ Myers first argument concerning different creation stories he succeeds in doing one thing !...... Committing the Genetic Fallacy
yhwhizlife1 1 month ago
wow PZ myers opening statement is really quite shocking and ignorant... Maybe he should stick to his biology studies, His philosophical skills are equivalent to the philosophical skill of like .... Joe Rogan or something .
yhwhizlife1 1 month ago
lol rite after good evidence for Gods existence based on historical events and nature. PZ starts his argument defending against a God of the gaps opponent ** total fail **
iluminandoscholar 1 month ago
@iluminandoscholar "PZ starts his argument defending against a God of the gaps opponent ** total fail ** "
Actually, he was explicitly following the debate format, which forbade comments on the first speaker's statements. And of course, what you regard as good evidence is perceived by the opposition as utterly laughable. I mean, even pointing at testimony as evidence that magic exists demonstrates that you have no clue what the nature of evidence is.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro lol dude calm down i have made no decision on what to believe yet. I'm actually quiet fond of debates i probably watch like 3 or 4 hours of debates a day. and from my point of view the atheist in this debate was just week. and from your comments i just learned that you need to know how to follow a debate. your just like that atheist in a way using your emotions and what not.
iluminandoscholar 1 month ago
@iluminandoscholar Here's the reason why there is no reason to trust the reports of Magic Jesus: A miracle is by definition a naturally impossible event. That is the entire reason it's regarded as evidence for the supernatural. Naturally impossible events are, at best, the least likely explanation for the origin of any such testimony. All alternatives, such as being mistaken, fraud, stories changing over time etc are more likely by definition and thus belief is irrational.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@iluminandoscholar I'm sorry if this offends the gullible portion of humanity, but it really is true that you are a moron if you believe miracle claims due to testimony. You also can not do this consistently, because you must reject the miracle claims of competing religions, via the reasoning that they are unlikely to be true, to avoid holding a contradictory worldview. That you still refer to the nonsense you believe for inconsistent reasons as "good evidence" is just amusing
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@iluminandoscholar definitely an EPIC fail, LOL
beto88keys 1 month ago
the problem I see is that even If the bible is false, that does not prove that we not need a timeless and causeless for the origin of the universe.
SASSJMSCBC 1 month ago
@SASSJMSCBC "the problem I see is that even If the bible is false, that does not prove that we not need a timeless and causeless for the origin of the universe."
No, it just proves that Christianity is false. If all you know about your origin of the universe is that it's timeless and causeless you're well within the boundaries of Naturalism. The naturalistic definition of "nature" has no origin and asking for one is like asking "Who made God?" and actually expecting an answer.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@SASSJMSCBC It's also worth mentioning that when one is using the words universe and nature as distinct entities, where the universe has an origin and is distinct from a nature that does not(or is distinct from "all that exists including God" in the theistic version) one is adopting a terminology that is incredibly dangerous with respect to equivocation. It's usually much better to talk about "nature", because showing spacetime began does not even begin to support the supernatural.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
PZ Myers is one of those people you just want to punch in face, he is such a prick! Cant belive atheist think his arguments hold water.
92xtaylor 1 month ago
Comment removed
Swipe57 1 month ago
Comment removed
Swipe57 1 month ago
@Swipe57 I think they were laughing at him not with him most of the time. I think they only laughed with him once.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
I can't thank Myers enough for a performance like this. He made an utter fool of himself and he is totally oblivious to it.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
Dr PZ Myers is a disrespectful idiot who shouldn't be debating in the first place. He cannot refute ANY of the claims made by Dr. Kirk and therefor has to use Ad-Hominem argumentation to actually get the moron-based audience to agree with him. He misinterprets, deliberately, what Dr. Kirk was implying, and then spews it all over the audience.
True scientists should be ashamed for having Him listed as a "scientists", and Kirk deserves better than this moron.
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
This isn't even close. Dr Durston is clearly the more scholarly, intelligent, and well-mannered of the two. Dr Myers is ridiculous in both his comprehension of the debate, and his contempt for it, continually confusing dismissal for refutation.
Fett4 1 month ago
ABOOOT
MrPaulwalrus 1 month ago
Mr. Kirk Durston opens - 7:48
Dr. P.Z. Meyers opens - 28:21
Mr. Kirk Durston rebuttal - 51:14
Dr. P.Z. Meyers rebuttal - 1:03:30
Mr. Kirk Durston closing remarks - 1:13:35
Dr. P.Z. Meyers closing remarks - 1:20:20
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago 8
Dr PZ Myers was a poor debater and should never debate again.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris Agreed! He was giving a lecture on Biology....????
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
I think the Bible thumpers are feeling butthurt. Boohoo.
SylG73 1 month ago
@SylG73 Certainly not because of this video. Myers got owned.
empreme 1 month ago
It is a shame that this debate wasn't participated by a serious atheist who would approach the arguments in a formal and reasonable way. The atheist saturated his presentation with insults and ridicule and clearly spent his time trying to win friendship approval with the audience more than setting any diligent attention to the debate at hand.
reformedman 1 month ago 6
@reformedman Tell me about it. This idiot is basing his argument ENTIRELY on Ad-Hominem crap!
MrVirtualCoder 1 month ago
@reformedman -- Agreed! Richard Dawkins would have ripped this idiot to SHREDS!
ColonPal 1 month ago
@ColonPal
Are you serious? Dawkins and Myer are identical. They are both inept, they can't even grasp the argument.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision -- Grasp what argument? All Dawkins presents is fact, while silly believers try in vain to make him stumble, very stupidly, I might add.
If Creationists TRULY believed in their own nonsense, they wouldn't feel the need to convince everyone else of their silly beliefs because the facts would speak for themselves. All Dawkins has ever done is point his contenders to their own irrational selves.
ColonPal 1 month ago
@reformedman That's why I don't approve of that approach. Ridicule tends to shock or anger religious people to the point at which they don't hear any of the solid points inbetween. In Meyer's opening there were long periods of factual discussion with no jokes, but somehow you've come away from this believing that he's not serious. I think he mis-managed his time rather badly so the opening finshed too abruptly, but he still made plenty of valid points that you seem to have missed.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl no, he didn't make any valid points. They are all refutable. I agree with you that he mis-managed his time and I have heard better defenses from atheists but in all my years I have never heard a good positive assertion by an atheist. If you have ever heard of a good positive argument FOR atheism, please post a link.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman It depends what you mean by "atheism". My identity is composed of many parts: being an atheist is just one of them, and certainly not the most important. Being Christian is often the big one for people of that faith which might account for any confusion.
Atheism is not the assertion that God doesn't exist. Religious people all over the world claim that a God or Gods exist; atheists simply reject those claims on the basis that they lack evidence and good reason.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl There is where you are wrong; you are using an incorrect definition of atheism and if you'd like we can rename things and then claim wrong things about them. For example, I will rename my Honda as a Ferrari and tell everyone I own a Ferrari. Obviously this is wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It positively asserts this.
What you have mislabeled is called Agnosticism which is a lack of belief either way. Atheism is a positive attitude of the absence of God.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman A-theism = non-theism. Agnosticism refers to knowledge (gnosis is greek for knowledge), so a gnostic theist claims to know for a fact that there is a god. I would be an agnostic atheist because, although I don't believe god exists, I am not certain. Agnosticism as you mentioned it is a common colloquial misunderstanding of terms - please look at the etymology of the words in question.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@reformedman In addition, there's no clear definition of what it is to be Christian; there are so many different sects upholding different doctrines, often even decrying the other sects as non-Christian. I would not presume to tell you which of the multitude of different versions of your faith defines you, so, as the one to whom the label "atheist" applies, I shall define precisely what it means to be one, according to the precise linguistic definitions in my previous comment.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl Why did you just change the subject? We were just talking about a request to hear a good positive argument for atheism and you just replied with there are a lot of denominations in Christianity. Are you kidding me?
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman No. We differ on the very definitions of the words we're using so how can we possibly have any kind of cogent discussion without first agreeing on what it is we're actually talking about. If you're interested in communication rather than a shouting match then please have another look at my previous two messages. I hope you can see why I define atheism the way I do, and why I reject your definition.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl Your definition is worthless. I use the theological dictionaries to define theological terms. I don't ask a layman or novice what he thinks atheism means.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman Ah. Well, just as I wouldn't define your faith for you, I would NEVER call your definition of a part of your identity worthless. Is that how you think Christ would have spoken to a non-believer?
I call myself atheist, you call me agnostic. We'll have to agree to differ because you're appealing to your special dictionary as though it were infallible. So as an agnostic; someone unconvinced God exists, why do you think I should believe your God exists and not say, Allah?
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl I am appealing to my 'special' dictionary? Sir, you are just mumbling now. Look at the Oxford English Dictionary and see the usuage of affirm and attest when it defines atheism. Look at Webster, look at other reputable dictionaries.
Your definition is worthless BECAUSE you just made it up.
With regard to how Jesus would relate with your rebellion, research how Jesus related to the Pharisees; people who didn't believe in him.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman The top few from google: "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings", "a disbelief in the existence of a deity", "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". I did not make it up.
The Pharisees were the extremists of their day: only a small group of people followed Christ during his life and yet he treated the lowest of the non-believers with respect and compassion. Being judgemental and arrogant was not part of his message.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl Good references, good references.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman Good refutation of my argument about your apparent failure as a Christian. Also, why assume that online dictionaries are necessarily poor sources? Just cause something's been set down on paper, such as in your 'theological' (i.e. highly biased) dictionary, doesn't make it credible.
I've had numerous productive discussions with people of all faiths - I tried to reason with you but you've tried to make a fight at every step of the way. This is getting silly.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl Correct! It's been silly from the start. I ask you for an assertive positive arguement for atheism, you respond you don't need one. I explain that atheism is the positive affirmation that God does NOT exist and I use the Oxford English Dictionary, to which you respond, that's not your personal opinion of the word and you find it defined by a blogger on google defined the way you like. I agree, don't converse with me, I use rational logic which is ofcourse silly.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman Actually atheism is the disbelief in god, which is not a positive position. Atheism does not require evidence because lack of acceptance of a positive claim (god exists) is the default position until evidence is presented.
TheScienceFoundation 1 month ago
@reformedman I used three online dictionaries: one of them was the Merriam-Webster which in fact had BOTH definitions: "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity". I don't believe for a second that your definition is the ONLY one the OED gave.
I do admit that some atheists are as you define it ('strong' or 'gnostic' atheists for me) in that they claim to know god doesn't exist, but I've never met anyone that arrogant or silly. All... (cont)
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@reformedman ...the atheists I know merely disbelieve the claims of theists, and I think they're in the majority. I tried to acknowledge your definition - as far as you're concerned my thoughts denote an agnostic, but whether we use my label or yours I am not asserting God doesn't exist. Technically it's your duty to convince me (1 Peter 3:15) but I'm won't hold you to it because "But do this with gentleness and respect" clearly means very little to you.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl 1. "The atheists I know..." are what is called soft atheists which is another form of agnosticism.
2. "I am not asserting God doesn't exist..." you sir, are an agnostic.
3. "Technically it's your duty...." you misquoted or misunderstood 1Peter 3:15. The verse actually refers to 'responding' or 'answering' when someone inquires and is interested. You are not doing either, you instead, are interested in diverting issues.
reformedman 1 month ago
@reformedman This is weird. I try to cover every point you raise, make concessions when appropriate, and generally try to advance the discussion. Can't you even acknowledge that words can have more than one definition? What IS the complete entry in the OED on atheism? Also I already said I'm an agnostic by your definition, and asked you several messages ago why your God is more plausible than, for example, Allah - that was a genuine question that I don't have the answer for.
tecciztucatl 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl I would whole-heartedly make concessions in our conversation if I felt that something I said could be conceded but honestly, I think you have to admit, I have not said anything against standard acceptation within philosophical circles. OED does deliniate weak and strong atheism but the reason I didn't concede that point is because it is accepted that weak atheism is actually agnosticism. This leaves strong atheism as the only viable form of atheism.
reformedman 1 month ago
@tecciztucatl part2 continuation.... Jehovah is more plausible than Allah because Jehovah made good his claim. There are contradictions in the Q'ran, Mohammed definitively wrote errors, and the historical proof of textual revision remove the Q'ran from credibility. The Christian Bible affirms the textual validity of the Hebrew Bible and the prophecies involved in the HebBib validate the Christian Bible all the while being a contrary group. The list of reasons is too long for 500 ch
reformedman 1 month ago
I think the P. Z. Meyers guy just read the God Delusion and spouted out everything in the book. As usual he straw manned the theists arguments to nothing more than god of the gaps reasoning.
philosophizer149 1 month ago 3
I was looking forward to this debate. Thank you for uploading!
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos
Why? This was horrible on the atheist part it was just insults.
ninetailschris 1 month ago
@ninetailschris I was looking forward to it because I heard about it. Why would it be a problem for me to want to see a debate? But I would agree, Myers got creamed.
drcraigvideos 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@drcraigvideos
If you are able to see the scoreboard, you are able to see that your religious opinions have not been able to supplant science.
I imagine this is why you censor the comments on your own channel....
odinata 1 month ago