@hdregmore "Okay. so the Australian $100 note has Dame Nellie Melba. So does that mean we should all sing opera soprano?" Actually this vid was a reply to another video, but if you would like to sing soprano be my guest, but if you're happy with the legend "in god we trust" you would need to be happy with "in Allah we trust" or maybe "in Sun Wukong we trust" and even "in Saraswati we trust" to avoid being a hypocrite! it's my understanding that both Darwin and Dame Nellie actually existed
@hughjarrse What a ridiculous notion. The term "God" is generic and does not exclude any other faith. You call me a hypocrite? I suggest that you are an ignoramus for venturing into the presentation of an irrelevant and meaningless 31 seconds of sheer stupidity.
"The term "God" is generic and doesn't exclude any other faith" yes it is does, Christianity is a monotheistic faith, put simply the god of Abraham (Yahweh) is the only god that exists, everyone else is wrong,
would you prefer "in gods we trust"
"an irrelevant and meaningless 31 seconds"
These are people in the world (many in America) who dont accept evolution, despite being scientific fact, again I repeat this vid was a reply to another video, so you have no idea if its relevant or not
@hughjarrse You complicate something that has quite simple.It is the classic straw man argument used unsuccessfully by most atheists to avoid the philosophical validity of the idea.The processes within evolution are subject to hypothesis, but the theory is scientifically supported by facts. Regardless of what the video is in reply to, you have purported that having Darwin on "your money" somehow gives you smug intellectual credence.I have simply replied in short that this is nonsense.You fail
@hdregmore I wish I had your omniscience, dictating by fiat that no matter what my video was a reply to it was irrelevant! for your information it was a reply to a belief that Darwin was evil and belief in evolution was responsible for all the evil in the world, a view held by many Americans, I was pointing out that Darwin was held in such esteem over here his portrait was used on money, I love the way you use Atheist in the pejorative, 90% of US prisoners are "religious" murderers, rapists etc
@hdregmore I just watched the video on you youtube home page, had I watched it earlier I could have saved us both a lot of time, it seems our little duologue ends here, cheers, take it easy buddy
@hdregmore You're video "Evolution is Proven (But not Atheism)" is quite ridiculous, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, it may as well be called "Evolution is Proven (But not Afairyism)" If evolution is proved then the god of the bible doesn't exist, the god who made the universe in 6 days 6,000yrs ago and created Adam & Eve is proved false, it proves the bible is wrong, it doesn't prove no god
@hughjarrse What a moronic statement. I can quite easily prove that something does not exist. A case in question would be any intelligible assertions you have made. If you are into fairies that is your own problem. Then you follow with more rubbish about the OT. You should really attempt to state something that is not either disingenuous or just plain stupid. Now write something else dumb so we can all laugh again.
@hdregmore Again you show your answers to be style over substance, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, also you seem to find the OT rubbish, Jesus didn't think so ""Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:18" You end many posts with "you fail" making yourself sole arbiter, conceit, arrogant? I see you sidestepped omniscient/omnipotent, I was genuinely interested in you explanation
@hdregmore "I can quite easily prove that something does not exist. A case in question would be any intelligible assertions you have made"
Sheesh, you really don't understand do you? all you could possibly do is show (with you as sole arbiter once again) I haven't made any "intelligible assertions" you have seen, you can't know if I have 1,000's I haven't bothered sending, you can postulate the probability based on other replies, but you cant know, that's the loophole god and fairies hides in
@hughjarrse Are you mad?You ask me a question then criticize me for being "sole arbiter". Again you have problems with quotes.The statement was "any intelligible assertions you have made" which is quite easy to prove by looking back at your comments.You can postulate all over your fairies if you like however that does not remove you from your current failed position.As for loopholes you appear to be ineffectual at finding one to get out of the corner where you are being easily pummeled
You missed the point yet again, I don't "criticize" you as "sole arbiter" I was pointing that your opinion of a fail is meaningless, I'll point out again it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist, and the fact you think it is possible shows the poverty of your intellect, you use flowery words and hyperbole to say absolutely nothing, and end nearly every post with some imagined self congratulatory decree, still no luck with omniscient/omnipotent I see, c'mon you're not trying champ
@hughjarrse "it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist, and the fact you think it is possible shows the poverty of your intellect". What inane nonsense, I have already given an example. All you need do is limit the terms of reference for the inference. Now you hide behind my 'flowery words" displaying your inability to assert any valid suggestion.You are simply bereft of insightful argument.Stop leading with your chin and you might stay off the canvass Rocky.You are becoming punch drunk
2. As I have asked you before, where exactly is your evidence of this pummeling? Please refer us to your "money punch" comment that did the work. I have referred you to no less than 4 instances of you misquoting verbatim text.That would give me a TKO anywhere
3. see 2. You are definitely punch drunk now. Swinging wildly with nothing hitting.
4. Nice try. God conforming to your formulaic criteria is a nonsense.Study some theology subjects like middle knowledge.
1, why not? they're quite happy to tell me I will burn in hell, "Thats your problem" strange answer
2, your inability to show how this video is smug intellectualizing you repeatedly fail to understand it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, your perpetual ducking of the omniscient omnipotent problem, presumably because its beyond human comprehension, yet you come to this conclusion with a human mind (ok half) if gods not logical then your making it up as logic is all we have
2. I already have shown that.You have simply failed to defend its frivolous absurdity
3. I would be over-generous if I attributed a semi-moronic brain to your ridiculous statements. Don't hurt yourself attempting logic.I duck nothing. You can tie yourself up philosophically if you like but in the end you will have to forgo your ego and accept that infinite knowledge and power can be attributed to God. If you do not have it how can you understand it?
@hdregmore "accept that infinite knowledge and power can be attributed to God. If you do not have it how can you understand it?" how can god be omnipotent and omnipotent? "he just is OK!" How does that work outside of dream time? Q: how does a TTSS spread the plague? A: it just does, can I have my diploma now? You really do have delusions of adequacy. Apart from the invaluable/ indispensable cunt calling service, why would Christians need someone who doesn’t believe their bible to defend them?
@hughjarrse You write "You really do have delusions of adequacy" when quite clearly you have the delusion of ego which prevents you accepting the concept. Again you attempt figuratively to explain science matters in relation to philosophical ones. Derrrr, you fail badly. You even extrapolate the illusion by giving yourself a numb nuts diploma. If you wish dabble in theology I suggest you take a few classes and stop wasting everyone's time with dumb analogies.
@hdregmore " Again you attempt figuratively to explain science matters in relation to philosophical ones"
So what besides "it's beyond human comprehension " could a philosopher give to my question? and you don't accept the absurdity of human philosopher explaining that to a human questioner? "if triangles had a god, they would give him three sides" and if asked why they would paraphrase you "he just does, it's beyond triangular comprehension" a pathetic answer with absolutely no meaning
@hughjarrse More misguided and irrelevant attempts in colourful analogies. The only thing that is pathetic is your attempts in explaining your lack of comprehension on the subject. The fact is that the idea of omniscience and omnipotence being unhindered characteristics of God is an easily defended position when considering their consequences and implications. You simply refuse to accept that. Now please stop trying to portray your lack of comprehension with inane figurative stories.
@hdregmore analogy is extremely important, it helps to show the absurdity of a situation, for god can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time substitute god can be yellow and red at the same time, but it's beyond human understanding how god can be yellow and red at the same time, next you'll be saying "god works in mysterious ways" the classic get out of jail free card, I asked a perfectly legitimate and logical question, and you were unable to answer it, without recourse to magic.
@hughjarrse Then perhaps you should learn it's correct usage. Again an erroneous quotation fro Miss Quote - "god works in mysterious ways". You really should try fixing that habit. It is very inaccurate and displays your inability to present factual responses. Oh and here is the usual straw man "magic".
@hdregmore "god works in mysterious ways" appears around 220,000 times on google, and as you have no idea where I took the quote from you fail yet again, I can't afford you the luxury of not mentioning "magic" as your entire (not to mention extremely week) explanation as to how this god of yours can be omniscient/omnipotent at the same time is based in magic, you don't like the word because it shows exactly what you're clinging to "god can be anything coz he's magic" is childlike in the extreme
@hughjarrse It may appear in google but it is NOT a quote that I made. You therefore have no justification using it. It is called a straw man, an attempt to distract from the point in question. There are millions of quotes referring to atheism that I could "miss quote " and throw at you. However they are contextually meaningless. Just as you have been. Phrases like "nihilistic arrogance", "introverted denial" and "horse blinders" come to mind.
@hdregmore OK, one more time, without using a "god can do anything" or a "god moves in mysterious ways" type device explain how a god, yours or anyone else's, can be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? I have explained why I think it's not possible in straight talking with no chicanery, All I ask is for you to do the same. You never answered why Christians need you to defend them when you don't even believe their book! feel free to post any anti Atheist quotes, I will not duck any
@hughjarrse Take your blinkers off Mr Ed. It is quite easy to disregard God as "magical".It is however much more taxing on the mind to actually study the philosophical ideas involved with it. But then again you are unable to accept these possibilities are you? It is not my concern if you do not comprehend the dichotomy of absolute characteristics.Yet again you accuse me of ducking when all you can do is misquote and refuse to acknowledge or study basic theological positions.You continually fail.
@hughjarrse I thought you had finally realized that you have been severely flattened .However you obviously received your trainer's approval to attempt another round. Try not to bleed figurative bullshit all over everyone before you go down this time. If I am childlike then you would be prenatal in respect to the subject. A definite non-starter.
" I thought you had finally realized that you have been severely flattened" Nope just been to Reykjavík for a few days, I didn't say you used the quote, it may come as a surprise to you but there are quotes in the public domain that didn't have their inception between your ears! All I did was ask you a question and you were unable to answer it without recourse to magic! your "blinders" (blinkers) comment was strangely pertinent, you seem to think there are humans that use more than human minds
@hughjarrse There may be quotes in the public domain but you cannot cite them as statements that I have made. That is called misquoting. It is being inaccurate and disingenuous. You are the queen of that. Again with "magic". Have you ever thought of being a magician? You have managed to make any semblance of legitimacy that you may have had disappear. That's the start of a good act. You obviously refer to blinders as being "strangely pertinent" because you regularly utilize them.
@hdremore "you cannot cite them as statements that I have made" I never have, you try every device you can muster to avoid questions you can't answer, when the crap has been cut through it boils down to "magic man can do anything" you don't like it because it sounds naive, and as you see yourself quite the antipodean intellectual (lose the podean, and you'd be closer) it annoys you when someone sees through it, stop saying I won't understand it, just post the answer, I'm not the only reader here
@hughjarrse Okay let's wrap this up.You take ages to answer and avoid accepting the answers provided.
1) Your video is pointless and foolish
2) You made a stupid attempt to attack me regarding my channel page.
3) You continually misquote me due to your inability to comprehend the correct citing reference usage.
4) You refuse to accept philosophical arguments regarding the characteristics of God. Holding hard to the belief that a creator would be restrained by empirical forms of logic
@hdregmore 1, the video contains two facts, I know you don't like facts, but I didn't think even you would find facts "pointless and foolish" also the person it was meant for found it interesting Darwin was on money.
2, I simply asked the questions, you could have chosen not to answer, you tried to answer and looked ridiculous.
3 as I explained you're not the only person on earth to make quotes.
4 again god can do anything coz he's magic, don't ask for proof
@hdregmore For fucks sake give it a rest you drongo, your feeble efforts are embarrassing, are you as old as you say of are you a school kid fucking about
@itsChristonabike Who rattled your cage fuckwit? The only embarrassment here is you and your Daffy Dawkinsian bullshit. It's easy to use ad hominem abuse to belittle people isn't it? But it is a bit harder to actually make a valid intelligent point. Moron.
@hdregmore "It's easy to use ad hominem abuse to belittle people isn't it?" "You should really attempt to state something that is not either disingenuous or just plain stupid. Now write something else dumb so we can all laugh again"
"This is great value for me as you continue to trip over your own inflated ego. You look even more stupid"
"Try not to bleed figurative bullshit all over everyone before you go down this time"
"Dawkinsian bullshit." where does Memetics fall short?
@itsChristonabike Oh no! We have another mirror quoter! It might make you feel smug but it only displays your arrogance. The idea of memes is just postulative analogical nonsense. They require more faith than any imaginative mainstream religion. How about I postulate a theory on pixie dust that has been passed down through the ages enabling variations in speech. That has just as much credence.
@hdregmore "The only embarrassment here is you and your Daffy Dawkinsian bullshit."
Where's the Dawkinsian bullshit HERE? You seemed to get a bit agitated when hughjarrse introduced spurious bullshit from your channel, but you seem happy to include my views based on your interpretation from my channel, nothing to do with this video, wanker
@itsChristonabike Piss off egghead and spray your chook feed somewhere else. I owe you nothing. You personally attacked me for no reason idiot. So you deserve to get hit in the face with whatever ammunition I come up with.
@hdregmore "you deserve to get hit in the face with whatever ammunition I come up with"
But you're firing blanks! and those remarks I posted we're not aimed at me, I found it quite comical you would attack someone for using ad hominem attacks with ad hominem attacks. you find memes "analogical nonsense" yet Hawking, Penrose, Pinker, Blackmore and Deutsch find legitimacy in them, now who's side should I come down on? world renowned psychologists and physicists, or a brain dead youtube warrior?
@itsChristonabike If they are blanks then why are you complaining of their sting? Your brain obviously never even developed. You live in the state of Atrophy and the city of Intellectual Despondence. In short you are bereft of the ability to form your own thought processes. Run back to the arms of your theorists and leave the real world for those delivering progressive substance.
@hdrgmore I can quite understand why you find "theorists" threatening, because to be a theorist you have to be able to think, it's thinking that raises us above other species (well, some of us) it's the reason we don't think mountains or the sun are gods (again some of us) and it the reason we can dismiss myth and superstition (er.some of us)
I've read most of the posts here and it's clear you were out of your depth from the start (to everyone but you) keep banging the rocks together, who knows
@itsChristonabike I don't think hdrgmore is quite as stupid as he seems, he realized fairly early on he'd fucked up which is why he dodged questions he was unable to answer for various reason, either he had no answer, or because a truthful answer would have shown him as the conceited pompous twat he is, still it's been fun watching him try to justify not answering questions, his pride prevented him giving in, but he just dug deeper and deeper
@hughjarrse Direct your insults to me fool. Your list of failings has been presented without any coherent answers forthcoming. It must be very sad to lose a debate on your own forum. I am surprised that you have not deleted my comments and blocked me by now. That is the usual tactic of idiots of your ilk.
@hdregmore I was talking about you not to you, delete your posts? you've gotta be joking. your posts are comedy gold I'm not going to deny others the laughter I have enjoyed over the last few day! and rest assured I have never blocked anyone from any videos I have posted. If you consider your pathetic blundering over the issues we've been debating a "win", well that speaks volumes of you and the insular delusional world you exist in. take it easy don't be a stranger :o)
@hughjarrse Yeah, it's been great value for me and your viewers. Your delinquent denial has been laughably entertaining. If failure was a drink you would be permanently drunk in doddering defeat. :-P
@hdregmore BTW, would you mind posting an answer to how god can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? I would hate people to think I had deleted it! if brains were made of gun powder, you wouldn't have enough to blow your hat off ....... (what's next "yo mamma" jokes?)
@hughjarrse Please try to be original even when you are being incongruous. For the benefit of your readers I reassert my suggestion to you that you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained in various philosophical suggestions. From Kenosis to middle knowledge the position is easily defended. But you are not interested in knowledge are you? Your sole purpose on the subject is to remain in ignorant denial.
@hughjarrse So you finally accept that I have responded to your opportunistic question mirror head. Which part of “you should study some theology” and “From Kenosis to middle knowledge” did you not comprehend? I have led the jackass to water but it is up to him to stop bleating and drink.
@hdregmore "the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained in various philosophical suggestions"
These elusive suggestions either exist, or they don't. If they exist how hard would it be to post one here?
I'll show you in two words Q: How can god be omniscient & omnipotent at the same time? A: "He's Magic" that's an answer you can accept or reject, but it's something you've failed repeatedly to supply
@hughjarrse Now we are back to magicman bullshit. Every time a salient proposition of philosophy is suggested your immediate magical strawman is held up. Apply yourself to the subject discipline and you might gain some entrance into the ideas. However it would appears you will only accept answers that fit your predetermined position. You have acknowledged my answers but refuse to look into them. I do not intend to hold your uninformed hand. You fail yet again.
@hdregmore "Now we are back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
@hdregmore "Now we are back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
@hdregmore "back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
@hdregmore "back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
@hdregmore"back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
@hdregmore "back to magicman bullshit" Because that's my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
@hdregmore Do you not see the stupidity of your tactic? I'll simplify it for you Q: what is the German word for window? A: Take a German language course then you will understand!
OK, That's one approach, the other would be you just tell me the answer.
I don't want to study philosophical theology because it holds no interest for me, I don't care how many angels can dance on a pin head, so you either can or you can't tell me an answer, if you can't just say so.
@hughjarrse Perhaps you mean "elusive".I have and you have acknowledge it. Have you enrolled to study yet? I suggest you start with a basic introductory course before you move onto the branches of philosophy. You will find theological ideas relating to your need peppered throughout all the subject matter.
@hdregmore So if I study the philosophy of theology and somehow attain the dizzying heights of your comprehension of the subject, would I then be in a position to post an apposite answer on the possibility of an entity being omniscient & omnipotent at the same time?
Oh! and to save you the time I meant to type "answer" in the last post instead of aswer, which in it's own way was literally a partial answer, quite humorous considering you refuse to even give a partial answer
@hughjarrse There you go. You have it. All it took was a sledge hammer to the head for it to sink in. Sit down now and have a break, you've done a hard days brain work. Do you feel tired? Loosen your shoes to relieve the pressure on that immense cranium. There are no shortcuts to a disciplined education. Not even on youtube..
@hdregmore Aw! If I'm being honest I expected a little more, I guess I must have over estimated you , and when you consider how low my estimation of you already was, that's no mean feat! So now not only do you refuse to answer my question, you actually refuse to say if you CAN answer my question, Obviously I know exactly why you chose not to answer, you realized both yes and no had questions queued in response, but I thought you would have at least tried,
@hughjarrse No, I am George Harrison inconformidad. The fact that you had "questions queued in response" attests to the fact that you had no intention of considering the answers I have given. What was that noise? Oh, it was your lack of argument hitting the deck and the effluence of your integrity spewing across the canvas.
@hdregmore That may well be the case, but only if the argument against the dilemma is diametrically opposed to the paradox in the first instance, otherwise arguing the point would render both the omniscient part of the proposition along with the omnipotent/impotent appendix self defeating in the final analysis
@hughjarrse The paradox only exists for you due to your lack of knowledge regarding the subject. If you were serious about the matter you would take the trouble to study the myriad of alternative philosophical points that shows it to be an amateur oversimplification that could not possibly be correct. But then again you have been shown to be disingenuous and disregarding of what is involved in accepting these ideas.
@hdregmore "take the trouble to study the myriad of alternative philosophical points" If I go to the doctors and ask what's wrong with me, I don't expect him to say "here are some medical books, study them and find out for yourself" I simply asked you to impart your colossal philosophical knowledge to the rest of us, you either can or you can't post the answer here. judging by your self congratulatory self important pompous nature it's clear you would already have done so if you could
@hdregmore " I am not a doctor and you are not a patient. Yet another bad analogy"
OK, lets assume you know what you're talking about, and I'm someone asking for the answer to the omniscient/omnipotent dilemma (I realize assuming you know what you're on about is a stretch, but run with it) can you, or can you not post the answer here? that's as simple as I can make it for you
@hughjarrse "can you, or can you not post the answer here? that's as simple as I can make it for you'
I already have given you suggestions and suggestive study. Go do your own legwork for I do not individually spoon feed anyone.The idea that the disciplines of philosophy and theology can be compressed into a comment is considerably small minded. There are no Youtube PHDs and no shortcuts to academia.
@itsChristonabike Whatever idiot. You have been seen to be ignorant and lacking in substance so we all know where the mental discrepancy lies. That is not a theory, it is a fact.
@itsChristonabike He's been doing it for days, he decides he will fight the good fight for Christians, who presumably don't have this geezers mental capacity and therefore can't do it themselves .... he doesn't even believe their bible! he's been unable to come up with an answer to the omniscient/omnipotent problem, just keeps piping up with "you wouldn't understand it" (paraphrase, to keep him happy) as for his "youtube wins" I'm sure he actually believes he beats people
@hdregmore I trust my own logic, but to shut you up I looked up some philosophical big wigs to check, Guess what? I was right all the time, philosophers require a logical god, it's the answer to "can god make a square circle" answer: no because a circle needs certain properties to be a circle, as do squares, logic dictates it's not possible. You would say "god can make a square circle, but you wouldn't understand how" ... "can god make a rock too big for him to lift" logically no
@hdregmore Many people in the US (and some Aussie's) take the stance Darwin is the antithesis of god, therefore in many people's mind god & Darwin are inextricably linked, I was showing that in England Dawin was a celebrated icon, so much so his portrait has been put on the tenner. You decided to add Dame Nellie into the equation, even though she has no direct link with god or Darwin! that sould have warned me of your poverty of intellect, and joined up thinking skills, you failed from the start
@hdregmore "You refuse to accept philosophical arguments regarding the characteristics of God. Holding hard to the belief that a creator would be restrained by empirical forms of logic"
That might well be true, but could you actually post this amazing philosophical answer so I judge for my self
@hdregmore So lets see where we are, we have your pathetic "coz I can call you a cunt" reply to dodge a question, we have "you haven't made sense coz I said so" then the cherry on top of the cake "he just is and humans can't work it out" I had often wondered why boxers allowed corner men the liberty of throwing in the towel on their behalf, and why at the end of a bout both boxers raise their hands in victory? I think I'm beginning to understand now.
@hughjarrse If you decide to attack me regarding my channel page comments which have nothing to do with the matter in question then you deserve the suggestion. Have you given any thought to comprehending the meaning and use of citing and quoting sources? Because you have not been able to do it correctly so far. I think I'll call you 'Miss Quote" now.Your boxing bullshit makes no sense.You obviously have no knowledge of the sport.Try explaining yourself in direct rather than figurative language.
I have no interest whatsoever in boxing, hence my puzzlement over corner men deciding if a boxer should carry on or not, it was you who introduced the boxing parlance, and judging by your muddled thinking I guessing you may well have actually been a boxer, maybe you would have benefited from the corner mans intervention a few more times. it would have been far better for you to have said "what have my channel comments got to do with anything?" first off instead of failing to answer my questions.
@hdregmore the fact I've "pummeled" on every post you've left here is neither here nor there, even if I hadn't made you look rather silly time after time that wouldn't be proof that I hadn't made any "intelligible assertions" that you hadn't seen, you really seem to have trouble coming to terms with that, I haven't seen a single "intelligible assertion" from you, but I can't say non exist, I can just imagine the astronomical odds of any existing!
@hughjarrse Please direct us all to where I have been "pummeled'. I suggest that it has only happened in your vivid imagination. I am sure you have misunderstood how YOU have been beaten in the same way that you misquoted and fumbled with my channel statements. There are no odds in you making any "intelligible assertions' here for it has not happened. This is great value for me as you continue to trip over your own inflated ego. You look even more stupid.
@hdregmore for what its worth i have bin following this thread for a couple of days and hugh just about ripped you a new arsehole. i cant say you failed coz you didnt even compete :o)
@EmailEunuch Not quite the language I would have used, but thanks anyway (I think) He's just doing what all his type do waffle on about nothing, avoid the questions they can't answer and keep brining the conversation back to a point they think works, of course it seldom does. I can see why people block him it's analogous to putting a sheet over an annoying parrots cage
@EmailEunuch Would you like to direct me to exactly where this arsehole ripping happened? Was it during the 3 misquoted references supplied by Arse? Or was it during his failure to recognize his initial stupidity regarding figures on currency? If you say you have read all the posts please let us all know. Otherwise you can only be seen as a suck arse lackey of a retrograded moron.
@hdregmore first you decide your own victories, second you failed to understand you cant prove something doesnt exist, then you were unable to answer the all powerful all knowing problem, you criticized the video without knowing the purpose of the video, your obviously out of your depth shown by the increased level of abusive language, i cant imagine youve ever won a you tube debate apart from in your mind
@hughjarrse Why is that a problem? If you are referring to philosophical paradoxes that have been speculated regarding these qualities being unable to co-exist, they are just nonsense. At the basic level God is by nature all-encompassing. All-attractive is a better description, for it covers all these characteristics. Perhaps you should study some theology in order to understand such aspects of these attributes.
@hdregmore Ok, put you "philosophers" hat on, if god using his omniscience tells you the date of your death, he then cannot change the date of your death using his omnipotence without being wrong when he first told you the date of your death. omniscience by definition makes you impotent, also gods omniscience makes freewill impossible because god knows everything you will do before you're even born,
@hdregmore "God is by nature all-encompassing" So your suggesting you know the nature of god now, I thought you were fairly arrogant and conceited with your "people who I beat on youtube" claim or by your "I defend Christians who aren't as bright as me" boast, but "knowing gods nature" must be one of the most arrogant and conceited claims I have ever heard, whats next "what god meant to say there was......"
you put Louis Armstrong in the shade when it comes to blowing your own trumpet
@hughjarrse Okay so you have quoted (citing) 2 items erroneously from my channel page.If you cannot even quote written source accurately we cannot expect you to have any semblance of validity with any of your assertions.You then misrepresent my comment with a wrong quotation "knowing gods nature". I suggest that you read up on how to reference information.You call me
"arrogant and conceited" when YOU have presented with the venom of an impertinent and pompous mongoose. You fail.
@hdregmore "Regardless of what the video is in reply to, you have purported that having Darwin on "your money" somehow gives you smug intellectual credence.I have simply replied in short that this is nonsense.You fail"
Again your own uninformed assessment, this video contains two FACTS, where exactly is the "smug intellectual credence"? it is of course in your mind, it's your interpretation, quite obviously it's you who fail
@hughjarrse "Again your own uninformed assessment, this video contains two FACTS, where exactly is the "smug intellectual credence"? it is of course in your mind,it's your interpretation,quite obviously it's you who fail" Now you attempt to hide behind "interpretation".Is that some concession and admission that your foolhardy video makes no real point? It therefore fails in both design and execution.How are the referencing errors coming along? Are you gaining some control over that? Keep trying
@hdregmore ""Again your own uninformed assessment, this video contains two FACTS, where exactly is the "smug intellectual credence"?
OK no interpretation, show the "smug intellectual credence" in this video, not your opinion, not your interpretation, just show me where it is in this video? of course if you can't you will have to concede failure
@hughjarrse How about the assertion that most preachers don't care if they are right or wrong just as long as their "flock" think they are right etc. If that is not cynical and smug intellectualizing please tell me what it is? Who's assessment was that call? Is it based on any factual evidence? It has all the legitimacy and credence of a weak conspiracy theory.
@hdregmore "How about the assertion that most preachers don't care if they are right or wrong just as long as their "flock" think they are right etc"
Based on MY experience, you could at a stretch call it "cynical" but then you would need to know my experiences, you don't! "smug intellectualizing" certainly not. fail
I don't see how it's wrong to believe in God, Im agnostic, I don't give a flip, but I think religion is a great fundamental base for living a good life (that depends though). Darwin was a great man, but not atheist to my knowledge. Like Trey Parker has said,"Out of all crazy religious stories I've heard the silliest is,'so bassically the universe is expanding, and then it'll collapse on itself, and were here just cause', see I don't get the just cause part".
Yup, I knwo heisn't a creationist, but i'm damn sure he isn't Atheist. Explain why he gets angry when people call him Atheist? To me he shares the same belief as Einstein and cosmic spirit or entity otuside of the Universe, I consider him a mystic.
Also you seem to confuse agnostic with Atheist. Agnostics are far from Atheism.
Einstein had firm belief in God, though he denied a personal God he believed in God, Hawking is like agnostic/ deist.
Whatever no reason in arguing two different mentalities. Einstein and Hawking still believe in a supreme creator though. I don't care if it isn't the Christian one, as long as they believe in a creator it's fine with me.
"I only ever said that Creationism is the belief in the biblical god which according to all definitions it is! "
let's see the real definition:
"belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities"
Please explain why it says often and not always? Do you want to keep looking stupid?
"I know the difference between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design."
Alright, but i'm guessing your so called 154 IQ didn't help you because I was talking about Creationism and young earth creationism. ID is a proponent of both beliefs.
"Creationism isn't the belief that god made us, it's the belief that the biblical god made us"
Again the idiot confuses Creationism and young earth creationism. I'm a creationist, but I don't believe the biblical God created us.
yes I know young earth creationism is linked to fundamental biblical literists of the Christianity, you still don't know the difference between young earth creationism and creationism.
WOW! i'm being an ignorant brat? please, recalcitrant sophomoric morons liek you don't understand simple differences, Creationism ( the belief that a supreme being created the Universe) different from young earth creationism ( literal interpretation of the holy scripture).
"I know about all that crap but the thing is creationism is linked to the bible"
it's also linked to many other beliefs, I don't see where you're getting at? Dawkins considers himself somewhat as a creationist at times considering he believes aliens created us.
"creationist means "the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis""
of course, you've proven once again that you don't know what creationism is.
"Einstein didn't believe in creationism not evolution, this is because evolution wasn't discovered until over 100 years after Einsteins death. "
First of all I think you're confused with young earth creationism and creationism. young earth creationism started in the 1930's after teh scopes trial, Einstein died in the 1950's, but creationism (belief in a higher being creating us has existed as long as there was a belief in God.)
Hawking is a Deist, he does not believe in a personal God but he believes God created the Universe and their proportioned laws of the Universe, so did Einstein making them Creationists.
"he doesn't believe in god"
yes he does, how stupid do you sound, i have extensive knwoledge about his beliefs.
" it is impossible for an atheist/agnostic to be creationist."
yes it is possible, Dawkins says that it's possible for atheists to believe aliens created.
"Creationists are limited to the bible, Evolutionists are limited to the universe. "
Are you stupid or do you not understand the concept of creationism? Creationism is the belief that God created the Universe and it's laws, it isn't bound by young earth creationism. Einstein and hawking are both creationist, while VFX is a young earth creationist. I wouldn't expect an idiot like you to understand that though.
unfortunately, pretty much all modern governments are founded on religion. the main exception is the american government which was founded by a group of men who were predominantly atheist, but has since developed into a government based on christianity. even barack obama, who was born a muslim, had to swear on the bible at his inauguration to the american presidency. like it or not, international governments are based on religious fundamentals.
most modern governments are though. even the more recent ones (such as the former yugoslavian states and the central-african nations formed following civil wars) include religion at the heart of their political ethos. but i don't think fighting is the correct approach. that just leads to civil war. if it was possible, rejection should be the "weapon-of-choice", but it would require total cooperation from the entire public, an impossible feat methinks!
"evolutionists are tools" Thank you for that intelligent synopsis. Which version of Creation in the Bible do you like best? Chapter one, which has the same developmental sequence as Evolutionary theory teaches? Or chapter two, in which man was created before plants and animals? Chapter one, in which Adam and Eve were created at the same time? Or chapter two, in which Eve was created after all the animals?
I'm fine with Darwin's research personally. He proved that evolution existed, it does, it's just not the origin of life. Whether or not he said that it was the origin of life, I do not recall, but if so then that is where he used fact for fiction as many today like to do.
"Scientists are fuckin' geeks! Why would we listen to what they have to say about anything!!!" Well for one thing without scientists you'd probably spend most of your life clubbing animals with sticks for food, instead of enjoying living in a warm house with electricity hot running water and most importantly, the internet. Think before you speak. People will think more of you that way.
Ok,. well today it is 2.08 gods to our 1 darwin,.. what shall i buy??,.. might get a bible, a koran, and a star of david and play "Celebrity Religion Death Match",.. see who wins,.. Not who you'd think,.. yep,.. it was the SACRED COW,.. outsider at 50/1
in the hindu religion each person in this world can have 1 hindu god to themselves. but all other gods are idolotries, theres only 1 true God, and pandacraft has got it flipped around. it should be:Darwin < God. Darwin is most likely burning in hell right now for starting all this nonsense.
So what is wrong with the Flying Spagetti Monster being on the $10 bill?
gregrutz 9 months ago
Great Britain.
Greater.
PericlesGR 1 year ago 4
"can you, or can you not post the answer here? that's as simple as I can make it for you'
"I already have given you suggestions and suggestive study. Go do your own legwork"
A simple "no I can't" would have sufficed, you could have said that weeks ago and saved everyone a lot of time
hughjarrse 1 year ago
Who is this version of with or without you by?
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
Okay. so the Australian $100 note has Dame Nellie Melba. So does that mean we should all sing opera soprano?
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "Okay. so the Australian $100 note has Dame Nellie Melba. So does that mean we should all sing opera soprano?" Actually this vid was a reply to another video, but if you would like to sing soprano be my guest, but if you're happy with the legend "in god we trust" you would need to be happy with "in Allah we trust" or maybe "in Sun Wukong we trust" and even "in Saraswati we trust" to avoid being a hypocrite! it's my understanding that both Darwin and Dame Nellie actually existed
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse What a ridiculous notion. The term "God" is generic and does not exclude any other faith. You call me a hypocrite? I suggest that you are an ignoramus for venturing into the presentation of an irrelevant and meaningless 31 seconds of sheer stupidity.
hdregmore 1 year ago
"The term "God" is generic and doesn't exclude any other faith" yes it is does, Christianity is a monotheistic faith, put simply the god of Abraham (Yahweh) is the only god that exists, everyone else is wrong,
would you prefer "in gods we trust"
"an irrelevant and meaningless 31 seconds"
These are people in the world (many in America) who dont accept evolution, despite being scientific fact, again I repeat this vid was a reply to another video, so you have no idea if its relevant or not
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse You complicate something that has quite simple.It is the classic straw man argument used unsuccessfully by most atheists to avoid the philosophical validity of the idea.The processes within evolution are subject to hypothesis, but the theory is scientifically supported by facts. Regardless of what the video is in reply to, you have purported that having Darwin on "your money" somehow gives you smug intellectual credence.I have simply replied in short that this is nonsense.You fail
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore I wish I had your omniscience, dictating by fiat that no matter what my video was a reply to it was irrelevant! for your information it was a reply to a belief that Darwin was evil and belief in evolution was responsible for all the evil in the world, a view held by many Americans, I was pointing out that Darwin was held in such esteem over here his portrait was used on money, I love the way you use Atheist in the pejorative, 90% of US prisoners are "religious" murderers, rapists etc
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore I just watched the video on you youtube home page, had I watched it earlier I could have saved us both a lot of time, it seems our little duologue ends here, cheers, take it easy buddy
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse What does that have to do with the issue? Let me guess. It is yet another straw man attempt to depart from the subject. Quite sad really.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore You're video "Evolution is Proven (But not Atheism)" is quite ridiculous, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, it may as well be called "Evolution is Proven (But not Afairyism)" If evolution is proved then the god of the bible doesn't exist, the god who made the universe in 6 days 6,000yrs ago and created Adam & Eve is proved false, it proves the bible is wrong, it doesn't prove no god
hughjarrse 1 year ago
Comment removed
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hughjarrse What a moronic statement. I can quite easily prove that something does not exist. A case in question would be any intelligible assertions you have made. If you are into fairies that is your own problem. Then you follow with more rubbish about the OT. You should really attempt to state something that is not either disingenuous or just plain stupid. Now write something else dumb so we can all laugh again.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore Again you show your answers to be style over substance, it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, also you seem to find the OT rubbish, Jesus didn't think so ""Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:18" You end many posts with "you fail" making yourself sole arbiter, conceit, arrogant? I see you sidestepped omniscient/omnipotent, I was genuinely interested in you explanation
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "I can quite easily prove that something does not exist. A case in question would be any intelligible assertions you have made"
Sheesh, you really don't understand do you? all you could possibly do is show (with you as sole arbiter once again) I haven't made any "intelligible assertions" you have seen, you can't know if I have 1,000's I haven't bothered sending, you can postulate the probability based on other replies, but you cant know, that's the loophole god and fairies hides in
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Are you mad?You ask me a question then criticize me for being "sole arbiter". Again you have problems with quotes.The statement was "any intelligible assertions you have made" which is quite easy to prove by looking back at your comments.You can postulate all over your fairies if you like however that does not remove you from your current failed position.As for loopholes you appear to be ineffectual at finding one to get out of the corner where you are being easily pummeled
hdregmore 1 year ago
You missed the point yet again, I don't "criticize" you as "sole arbiter" I was pointing that your opinion of a fail is meaningless, I'll point out again it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist, and the fact you think it is possible shows the poverty of your intellect, you use flowery words and hyperbole to say absolutely nothing, and end nearly every post with some imagined self congratulatory decree, still no luck with omniscient/omnipotent I see, c'mon you're not trying champ
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse "it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist, and the fact you think it is possible shows the poverty of your intellect". What inane nonsense, I have already given an example. All you need do is limit the terms of reference for the inference. Now you hide behind my 'flowery words" displaying your inability to assert any valid suggestion.You are simply bereft of insightful argument.Stop leading with your chin and you might stay off the canvass Rocky.You are becoming punch drunk
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore I only posted my self congratulatory post to show such posts are meaningless.
"Defending Christians and other believers from Romani lions" and the reason they need you to defend them is?
"Fools who have blocked me because they are unable to reply rationally to my arguments" Who's assessment is this?
"There are no odds in you making any "intelligible assertions' here for it has not happened" Who's assessment is this?
please explain how a god can be omniscient AND omnipotent
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse 1) in reference to defending Christians. They cannot call you a cunt, but I can.
2) My assessment (as in my channel). It's called freedom of opinion.
3) Mine. The reference (you quote incorrectly again) is to the FACT that you have not done so here.
4) I have done so, you just cannot comprehend it.
Anything else or are you through with your portrayal of a simpleton?
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore 1, why not? they're quite happy to tell me I will burn in hell.(Hmm! which is worse?)
2, I have "pummeled" you on every point you've lamely raised (freedom of opinion)
3, see 2
4, It appears the youtube gremlins are striking again, that post seems to have gone missing, would you be so kind to re-post
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse 1. That's your problem
2. As I have asked you before, where exactly is your evidence of this pummeling? Please refer us to your "money punch" comment that did the work. I have referred you to no less than 4 instances of you misquoting verbatim text.That would give me a TKO anywhere
3. see 2. You are definitely punch drunk now. Swinging wildly with nothing hitting.
4. Nice try. God conforming to your formulaic criteria is a nonsense.Study some theology subjects like middle knowledge.
hdregmore 1 year ago
1, why not? they're quite happy to tell me I will burn in hell, "Thats your problem" strange answer
2, your inability to show how this video is smug intellectualizing you repeatedly fail to understand it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, your perpetual ducking of the omniscient omnipotent problem, presumably because its beyond human comprehension, yet you come to this conclusion with a human mind (ok half) if gods not logical then your making it up as logic is all we have
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse 1. Only strange to you.
2. I already have shown that.You have simply failed to defend its frivolous absurdity
3. I would be over-generous if I attributed a semi-moronic brain to your ridiculous statements. Don't hurt yourself attempting logic.I duck nothing. You can tie yourself up philosophically if you like but in the end you will have to forgo your ego and accept that infinite knowledge and power can be attributed to God. If you do not have it how can you understand it?
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "accept that infinite knowledge and power can be attributed to God. If you do not have it how can you understand it?" how can god be omnipotent and omnipotent? "he just is OK!" How does that work outside of dream time? Q: how does a TTSS spread the plague? A: it just does, can I have my diploma now? You really do have delusions of adequacy. Apart from the invaluable/ indispensable cunt calling service, why would Christians need someone who doesn’t believe their bible to defend them?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse You write "You really do have delusions of adequacy" when quite clearly you have the delusion of ego which prevents you accepting the concept. Again you attempt figuratively to explain science matters in relation to philosophical ones. Derrrr, you fail badly. You even extrapolate the illusion by giving yourself a numb nuts diploma. If you wish dabble in theology I suggest you take a few classes and stop wasting everyone's time with dumb analogies.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore " Again you attempt figuratively to explain science matters in relation to philosophical ones"
So what besides "it's beyond human comprehension " could a philosopher give to my question? and you don't accept the absurdity of human philosopher explaining that to a human questioner? "if triangles had a god, they would give him three sides" and if asked why they would paraphrase you "he just does, it's beyond triangular comprehension" a pathetic answer with absolutely no meaning
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse More misguided and irrelevant attempts in colourful analogies. The only thing that is pathetic is your attempts in explaining your lack of comprehension on the subject. The fact is that the idea of omniscience and omnipotence being unhindered characteristics of God is an easily defended position when considering their consequences and implications. You simply refuse to accept that. Now please stop trying to portray your lack of comprehension with inane figurative stories.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore analogy is extremely important, it helps to show the absurdity of a situation, for god can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time substitute god can be yellow and red at the same time, but it's beyond human understanding how god can be yellow and red at the same time, next you'll be saying "god works in mysterious ways" the classic get out of jail free card, I asked a perfectly legitimate and logical question, and you were unable to answer it, without recourse to magic.
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Then perhaps you should learn it's correct usage. Again an erroneous quotation fro Miss Quote - "god works in mysterious ways". You really should try fixing that habit. It is very inaccurate and displays your inability to present factual responses. Oh and here is the usual straw man "magic".
Atheist Bingo!
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "god works in mysterious ways" appears around 220,000 times on google, and as you have no idea where I took the quote from you fail yet again, I can't afford you the luxury of not mentioning "magic" as your entire (not to mention extremely week) explanation as to how this god of yours can be omniscient/omnipotent at the same time is based in magic, you don't like the word because it shows exactly what you're clinging to "god can be anything coz he's magic" is childlike in the extreme
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse It may appear in google but it is NOT a quote that I made. You therefore have no justification using it. It is called a straw man, an attempt to distract from the point in question. There are millions of quotes referring to atheism that I could "miss quote " and throw at you. However they are contextually meaningless. Just as you have been. Phrases like "nihilistic arrogance", "introverted denial" and "horse blinders" come to mind.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore OK, one more time, without using a "god can do anything" or a "god moves in mysterious ways" type device explain how a god, yours or anyone else's, can be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? I have explained why I think it's not possible in straight talking with no chicanery, All I ask is for you to do the same. You never answered why Christians need you to defend them when you don't even believe their book! feel free to post any anti Atheist quotes, I will not duck any
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Take your blinkers off Mr Ed. It is quite easy to disregard God as "magical".It is however much more taxing on the mind to actually study the philosophical ideas involved with it. But then again you are unable to accept these possibilities are you? It is not my concern if you do not comprehend the dichotomy of absolute characteristics.Yet again you accuse me of ducking when all you can do is misquote and refuse to acknowledge or study basic theological positions.You continually fail.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hughjarrse I thought you had finally realized that you have been severely flattened .However you obviously received your trainer's approval to attempt another round. Try not to bleed figurative bullshit all over everyone before you go down this time. If I am childlike then you would be prenatal in respect to the subject. A definite non-starter.
hdregmore 1 year ago
" I thought you had finally realized that you have been severely flattened" Nope just been to Reykjavík for a few days, I didn't say you used the quote, it may come as a surprise to you but there are quotes in the public domain that didn't have their inception between your ears! All I did was ask you a question and you were unable to answer it without recourse to magic! your "blinders" (blinkers) comment was strangely pertinent, you seem to think there are humans that use more than human minds
hughjarrse 1 year ago
Comment removed
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hughjarrse There may be quotes in the public domain but you cannot cite them as statements that I have made. That is called misquoting. It is being inaccurate and disingenuous. You are the queen of that. Again with "magic". Have you ever thought of being a magician? You have managed to make any semblance of legitimacy that you may have had disappear. That's the start of a good act. You obviously refer to blinders as being "strangely pertinent" because you regularly utilize them.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdremore "you cannot cite them as statements that I have made" I never have, you try every device you can muster to avoid questions you can't answer, when the crap has been cut through it boils down to "magic man can do anything" you don't like it because it sounds naive, and as you see yourself quite the antipodean intellectual (lose the podean, and you'd be closer) it annoys you when someone sees through it, stop saying I won't understand it, just post the answer, I'm not the only reader here
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Okay let's wrap this up.You take ages to answer and avoid accepting the answers provided.
1) Your video is pointless and foolish
2) You made a stupid attempt to attack me regarding my channel page.
3) You continually misquote me due to your inability to comprehend the correct citing reference usage.
4) You refuse to accept philosophical arguments regarding the characteristics of God. Holding hard to the belief that a creator would be restrained by empirical forms of logic
You lose
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore 1, the video contains two facts, I know you don't like facts, but I didn't think even you would find facts "pointless and foolish" also the person it was meant for found it interesting Darwin was on money.
2, I simply asked the questions, you could have chosen not to answer, you tried to answer and looked ridiculous.
3 as I explained you're not the only person on earth to make quotes.
4 again god can do anything coz he's magic, don't ask for proof
fail? you didn't even compete!
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Nice try, but you failed.
1)If it was a personal joke then you should just send it to that person.It would have stopped you looking incredibly foolish
2) I have answered your inane question and it is not my fault that you are intellectually impotent
3) You cannot cite other sources as quotations made by someone you are referring to in order to childishly dramatize your position
4) Your infatuation with magic is amusing,slightly disturbing and irrelevant.
You are a non-starter failure
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore For fucks sake give it a rest you drongo, your feeble efforts are embarrassing, are you as old as you say of are you a school kid fucking about
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Who rattled your cage fuckwit? The only embarrassment here is you and your Daffy Dawkinsian bullshit. It's easy to use ad hominem abuse to belittle people isn't it? But it is a bit harder to actually make a valid intelligent point. Moron.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "It's easy to use ad hominem abuse to belittle people isn't it?" "You should really attempt to state something that is not either disingenuous or just plain stupid. Now write something else dumb so we can all laugh again"
"This is great value for me as you continue to trip over your own inflated ego. You look even more stupid"
"Try not to bleed figurative bullshit all over everyone before you go down this time"
"Dawkinsian bullshit." where does Memetics fall short?
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Oh no! We have another mirror quoter! It might make you feel smug but it only displays your arrogance. The idea of memes is just postulative analogical nonsense. They require more faith than any imaginative mainstream religion. How about I postulate a theory on pixie dust that has been passed down through the ages enabling variations in speech. That has just as much credence.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "The only embarrassment here is you and your Daffy Dawkinsian bullshit."
Where's the Dawkinsian bullshit HERE? You seemed to get a bit agitated when hughjarrse introduced spurious bullshit from your channel, but you seem happy to include my views based on your interpretation from my channel, nothing to do with this video, wanker
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Piss off egghead and spray your chook feed somewhere else. I owe you nothing. You personally attacked me for no reason idiot. So you deserve to get hit in the face with whatever ammunition I come up with.
.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "you deserve to get hit in the face with whatever ammunition I come up with"
But you're firing blanks! and those remarks I posted we're not aimed at me, I found it quite comical you would attack someone for using ad hominem attacks with ad hominem attacks. you find memes "analogical nonsense" yet Hawking, Penrose, Pinker, Blackmore and Deutsch find legitimacy in them, now who's side should I come down on? world renowned psychologists and physicists, or a brain dead youtube warrior?
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike If they are blanks then why are you complaining of their sting? Your brain obviously never even developed. You live in the state of Atrophy and the city of Intellectual Despondence. In short you are bereft of the ability to form your own thought processes. Run back to the arms of your theorists and leave the real world for those delivering progressive substance.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdrgmore I can quite understand why you find "theorists" threatening, because to be a theorist you have to be able to think, it's thinking that raises us above other species (well, some of us) it's the reason we don't think mountains or the sun are gods (again some of us) and it the reason we can dismiss myth and superstition (er.some of us)
I've read most of the posts here and it's clear you were out of your depth from the start (to everyone but you) keep banging the rocks together, who knows
itsChristonabike 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike I don't think hdrgmore is quite as stupid as he seems, he realized fairly early on he'd fucked up which is why he dodged questions he was unable to answer for various reason, either he had no answer, or because a truthful answer would have shown him as the conceited pompous twat he is, still it's been fun watching him try to justify not answering questions, his pride prevented him giving in, but he just dug deeper and deeper
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Direct your insults to me fool. Your list of failings has been presented without any coherent answers forthcoming. It must be very sad to lose a debate on your own forum. I am surprised that you have not deleted my comments and blocked me by now. That is the usual tactic of idiots of your ilk.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore I was talking about you not to you, delete your posts? you've gotta be joking. your posts are comedy gold I'm not going to deny others the laughter I have enjoyed over the last few day! and rest assured I have never blocked anyone from any videos I have posted. If you consider your pathetic blundering over the issues we've been debating a "win", well that speaks volumes of you and the insular delusional world you exist in. take it easy don't be a stranger :o)
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Yeah, it's been great value for me and your viewers. Your delinquent denial has been laughably entertaining. If failure was a drink you would be permanently drunk in doddering defeat. :-P
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore BTW, would you mind posting an answer to how god can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? I would hate people to think I had deleted it! if brains were made of gun powder, you wouldn't have enough to blow your hat off ....... (what's next "yo mamma" jokes?)
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Please try to be original even when you are being incongruous. For the benefit of your readers I reassert my suggestion to you that you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained in various philosophical suggestions. From Kenosis to middle knowledge the position is easily defended. But you are not interested in knowledge are you? Your sole purpose on the subject is to remain in ignorant denial.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained in various philosophical suggestions"
That's a start, now would you care to actually post one of these suggestions?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse So you finally accept that I have responded to your opportunistic question mirror head. Which part of “you should study some theology” and “From Kenosis to middle knowledge” did you not comprehend? I have led the jackass to water but it is up to him to stop bleating and drink.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained in various philosophical suggestions"
These elusive suggestions either exist, or they don't. If they exist how hard would it be to post one here?
I'll show you in two words Q: How can god be omniscient & omnipotent at the same time? A: "He's Magic" that's an answer you can accept or reject, but it's something you've failed repeatedly to supply
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Now we are back to magicman bullshit. Every time a salient proposition of philosophy is suggested your immediate magical strawman is held up. Apply yourself to the subject discipline and you might gain some entrance into the ideas. However it would appears you will only accept answers that fit your predetermined position. You have acknowledged my answers but refuse to look into them. I do not intend to hold your uninformed hand. You fail yet again.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "Now we are back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "Now we are back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore"back to magicman bullshit" Because that's the my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
"you should study some theology whereby you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained" then explain them
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "back to magicman bullshit" Because that's my answer, and it remains the only answer posted here, you have seen fit to not to submit and answer, I can only conclude (as before) that you have no answer, you could prove me wrong with a single post, the fact you can't should actually start alarm bells ringing in your own head
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore Do you not see the stupidity of your tactic? I'll simplify it for you Q: what is the German word for window? A: Take a German language course then you will understand!
OK, That's one approach, the other would be you just tell me the answer.
I don't want to study philosophical theology because it holds no interest for me, I don't care how many angels can dance on a pin head, so you either can or you can't tell me an answer, if you can't just say so.
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "you will realize that the so called dilemma of God's characteristics is explained in various philosophical suggestions"
excellent, now all you have to do is post one of these illusive suggestions.
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Perhaps you mean "elusive".I have and you have acknowledge it. Have you enrolled to study yet? I suggest you start with a basic introductory course before you move onto the branches of philosophy. You will find theological ideas relating to your need peppered throughout all the subject matter.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore So if I study the philosophy of theology and somehow attain the dizzying heights of your comprehension of the subject, would I then be in a position to post an apposite answer on the possibility of an entity being omniscient & omnipotent at the same time?
Oh! and to save you the time I meant to type "answer" in the last post instead of aswer, which in it's own way was literally a partial answer, quite humorous considering you refuse to even give a partial answer
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse There you go. You have it. All it took was a sledge hammer to the head for it to sink in. Sit down now and have a break, you've done a hard days brain work. Do you feel tired? Loosen your shoes to relieve the pressure on that immense cranium. There are no shortcuts to a disciplined education. Not even on youtube..
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore Aw! If I'm being honest I expected a little more, I guess I must have over estimated you , and when you consider how low my estimation of you already was, that's no mean feat! So now not only do you refuse to answer my question, you actually refuse to say if you CAN answer my question, Obviously I know exactly why you chose not to answer, you realized both yes and no had questions queued in response, but I thought you would have at least tried,
are you Audley Harrison incognito?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse No, I am George Harrison inconformidad. The fact that you had "questions queued in response" attests to the fact that you had no intention of considering the answers I have given. What was that noise? Oh, it was your lack of argument hitting the deck and the effluence of your integrity spewing across the canvas.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore That may well be the case, but only if the argument against the dilemma is diametrically opposed to the paradox in the first instance, otherwise arguing the point would render both the omniscient part of the proposition along with the omnipotent/impotent appendix self defeating in the final analysis
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse The paradox only exists for you due to your lack of knowledge regarding the subject. If you were serious about the matter you would take the trouble to study the myriad of alternative philosophical points that shows it to be an amateur oversimplification that could not possibly be correct. But then again you have been shown to be disingenuous and disregarding of what is involved in accepting these ideas.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "take the trouble to study the myriad of alternative philosophical points" If I go to the doctors and ask what's wrong with me, I don't expect him to say "here are some medical books, study them and find out for yourself" I simply asked you to impart your colossal philosophical knowledge to the rest of us, you either can or you can't post the answer here. judging by your self congratulatory self important pompous nature it's clear you would already have done so if you could
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse I am not a doctor and you are not a patient. Yet another bad analogy.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore " I am not a doctor and you are not a patient. Yet another bad analogy"
OK, lets assume you know what you're talking about, and I'm someone asking for the answer to the omniscient/omnipotent dilemma (I realize assuming you know what you're on about is a stretch, but run with it) can you, or can you not post the answer here? that's as simple as I can make it for you
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse "can you, or can you not post the answer here? that's as simple as I can make it for you'
I already have given you suggestions and suggestive study. Go do your own legwork for I do not individually spoon feed anyone.The idea that the disciplines of philosophy and theology can be compressed into a comment is considerably small minded. There are no Youtube PHDs and no shortcuts to academia.
hdregmore 1 year ago
Comment removed
hdregmore 1 year ago
I always find it particularly funny when people fall down whilst trying to belittle another, epic fail!
Adjective: illusive - based on or having the nature of an illusion = magic man did it.
So you refuse yet again to provide an aswer
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike Whatever idiot. You have been seen to be ignorant and lacking in substance so we all know where the mental discrepancy lies. That is not a theory, it is a fact.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@itsChristonabike He's been doing it for days, he decides he will fight the good fight for Christians, who presumably don't have this geezers mental capacity and therefore can't do it themselves .... he doesn't even believe their bible! he's been unable to come up with an answer to the omniscient/omnipotent problem, just keeps piping up with "you wouldn't understand it" (paraphrase, to keep him happy) as for his "youtube wins" I'm sure he actually believes he beats people
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore I trust my own logic, but to shut you up I looked up some philosophical big wigs to check, Guess what? I was right all the time, philosophers require a logical god, it's the answer to "can god make a square circle" answer: no because a circle needs certain properties to be a circle, as do squares, logic dictates it's not possible. You would say "god can make a square circle, but you wouldn't understand how" ... "can god make a rock too big for him to lift" logically no
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore Many people in the US (and some Aussie's) take the stance Darwin is the antithesis of god, therefore in many people's mind god & Darwin are inextricably linked, I was showing that in England Dawin was a celebrated icon, so much so his portrait has been put on the tenner. You decided to add Dame Nellie into the equation, even though she has no direct link with god or Darwin! that sould have warned me of your poverty of intellect, and joined up thinking skills, you failed from the start
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "You refuse to accept philosophical arguments regarding the characteristics of God. Holding hard to the belief that a creator would be restrained by empirical forms of logic"
That might well be true, but could you actually post this amazing philosophical answer so I judge for my self
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore So lets see where we are, we have your pathetic "coz I can call you a cunt" reply to dodge a question, we have "you haven't made sense coz I said so" then the cherry on top of the cake "he just is and humans can't work it out" I had often wondered why boxers allowed corner men the liberty of throwing in the towel on their behalf, and why at the end of a bout both boxers raise their hands in victory? I think I'm beginning to understand now.
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse If you decide to attack me regarding my channel page comments which have nothing to do with the matter in question then you deserve the suggestion. Have you given any thought to comprehending the meaning and use of citing and quoting sources? Because you have not been able to do it correctly so far. I think I'll call you 'Miss Quote" now.Your boxing bullshit makes no sense.You obviously have no knowledge of the sport.Try explaining yourself in direct rather than figurative language.
hdregmore 1 year ago
I have no interest whatsoever in boxing, hence my puzzlement over corner men deciding if a boxer should carry on or not, it was you who introduced the boxing parlance, and judging by your muddled thinking I guessing you may well have actually been a boxer, maybe you would have benefited from the corner mans intervention a few more times. it would have been far better for you to have said "what have my channel comments got to do with anything?" first off instead of failing to answer my questions.
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore the fact I've "pummeled" on every post you've left here is neither here nor there, even if I hadn't made you look rather silly time after time that wouldn't be proof that I hadn't made any "intelligible assertions" that you hadn't seen, you really seem to have trouble coming to terms with that, I haven't seen a single "intelligible assertion" from you, but I can't say non exist, I can just imagine the astronomical odds of any existing!
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Please direct us all to where I have been "pummeled'. I suggest that it has only happened in your vivid imagination. I am sure you have misunderstood how YOU have been beaten in the same way that you misquoted and fumbled with my channel statements. There are no odds in you making any "intelligible assertions' here for it has not happened. This is great value for me as you continue to trip over your own inflated ego. You look even more stupid.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore for what its worth i have bin following this thread for a couple of days and hugh just about ripped you a new arsehole. i cant say you failed coz you didnt even compete :o)
EmailEunuch 1 year ago
@EmailEunuch Not quite the language I would have used, but thanks anyway (I think) He's just doing what all his type do waffle on about nothing, avoid the questions they can't answer and keep brining the conversation back to a point they think works, of course it seldom does. I can see why people block him it's analogous to putting a sheet over an annoying parrots cage
hughjarrse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hughjarrse Direct your comments to me if you have the guts.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@EmailEunuch Would you like to direct me to exactly where this arsehole ripping happened? Was it during the 3 misquoted references supplied by Arse? Or was it during his failure to recognize his initial stupidity regarding figures on currency? If you say you have read all the posts please let us all know. Otherwise you can only be seen as a suck arse lackey of a retrograded moron.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore first you decide your own victories, second you failed to understand you cant prove something doesnt exist, then you were unable to answer the all powerful all knowing problem, you criticized the video without knowing the purpose of the video, your obviously out of your depth shown by the increased level of abusive language, i cant imagine youve ever won a you tube debate apart from in your mind
EmailEunuch 1 year ago
@hdregmore I'm always interested as to which "super power" Christians choose for their god, is your god omniscient or omnipotent?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse More like omnivorous, unlike yourself. Your obvious limitations are the plurality of ideas.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore Please tell me you don't think its possible to be both omniscient AND omnipotent?
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Why is that a problem? If you are referring to philosophical paradoxes that have been speculated regarding these qualities being unable to co-exist, they are just nonsense. At the basic level God is by nature all-encompassing. All-attractive is a better description, for it covers all these characteristics. Perhaps you should study some theology in order to understand such aspects of these attributes.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore Ok, put you "philosophers" hat on, if god using his omniscience tells you the date of your death, he then cannot change the date of your death using his omnipotence without being wrong when he first told you the date of your death. omniscience by definition makes you impotent, also gods omniscience makes freewill impossible because god knows everything you will do before you're even born,
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "God is by nature all-encompassing" So your suggesting you know the nature of god now, I thought you were fairly arrogant and conceited with your "people who I beat on youtube" claim or by your "I defend Christians who aren't as bright as me" boast, but "knowing gods nature" must be one of the most arrogant and conceited claims I have ever heard, whats next "what god meant to say there was......"
you put Louis Armstrong in the shade when it comes to blowing your own trumpet
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse Okay so you have quoted (citing) 2 items erroneously from my channel page.If you cannot even quote written source accurately we cannot expect you to have any semblance of validity with any of your assertions.You then misrepresent my comment with a wrong quotation "knowing gods nature". I suggest that you read up on how to reference information.You call me
"arrogant and conceited" when YOU have presented with the venom of an impertinent and pompous mongoose. You fail.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "Defending Christians and other believers from Romani lions"
"Fools who have blocked me because they are unable to reply rationally to my arguments"
Direct quotes. in the fist case you assume you are better equipped to defend them than they are themselves, arrogance.
In the second you alone have decided these "fools" didn't measure up to your immense intellect, conceit
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hdregmore "Regardless of what the video is in reply to, you have purported that having Darwin on "your money" somehow gives you smug intellectual credence.I have simply replied in short that this is nonsense.You fail"
Again your own uninformed assessment, this video contains two FACTS, where exactly is the "smug intellectual credence"? it is of course in your mind, it's your interpretation, quite obviously it's you who fail
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse "Again your own uninformed assessment, this video contains two FACTS, where exactly is the "smug intellectual credence"? it is of course in your mind,it's your interpretation,quite obviously it's you who fail" Now you attempt to hide behind "interpretation".Is that some concession and admission that your foolhardy video makes no real point? It therefore fails in both design and execution.How are the referencing errors coming along? Are you gaining some control over that? Keep trying
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore ""Again your own uninformed assessment, this video contains two FACTS, where exactly is the "smug intellectual credence"?
OK no interpretation, show the "smug intellectual credence" in this video, not your opinion, not your interpretation, just show me where it is in this video? of course if you can't you will have to concede failure
hughjarrse 1 year ago
@hughjarrse How about the assertion that most preachers don't care if they are right or wrong just as long as their "flock" think they are right etc. If that is not cynical and smug intellectualizing please tell me what it is? Who's assessment was that call? Is it based on any factual evidence? It has all the legitimacy and credence of a weak conspiracy theory.
hdregmore 1 year ago
@hdregmore "How about the assertion that most preachers don't care if they are right or wrong just as long as their "flock" think they are right etc"
Based on MY experience, you could at a stretch call it "cynical" but then you would need to know my experiences, you don't! "smug intellectualizing" certainly not. fail
hughjarrse 1 year ago
Wow, Darwin on the 10 pound note? Epic!
freethinker923 1 year ago
Religion is just a bussines like all the things made by man in this world! period
GrayShark09 1 year ago
I don't see how it's wrong to believe in God, Im agnostic, I don't give a flip, but I think religion is a great fundamental base for living a good life (that depends though). Darwin was a great man, but not atheist to my knowledge. Like Trey Parker has said,"Out of all crazy religious stories I've heard the silliest is,'so bassically the universe is expanding, and then it'll collapse on itself, and were here just cause', see I don't get the just cause part".
TheFoxTank 1 year ago
Comment removed
hazzario 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I live in London and I'm embarrassed to have Darwin on the £10. It hasnt helped evolve our economy.
AndyWhite007 2 years ago
Comment removed
AndyWhite007 2 years ago
I'd like to see Religion debate Creationism then the winner debate Intelligent Design.
The grand prize should be a scholarship to Darwin College at Cambridge University : )
mathiastheok 2 years ago
Since the beggining you boasted over your IQ.
"whoever boasts over their IQ is a loser" -Stephen Hawking
Now you tell me that you believe chance created the Universe, are you joking me?
ogirv101 3 years ago
"Hawking is Atheist"
Yup, I knwo heisn't a creationist, but i'm damn sure he isn't Atheist. Explain why he gets angry when people call him Atheist? To me he shares the same belief as Einstein and cosmic spirit or entity otuside of the Universe, I consider him a mystic.
Also you seem to confuse agnostic with Atheist. Agnostics are far from Atheism.
Einstein had firm belief in God, though he denied a personal God he believed in God, Hawking is like agnostic/ deist.
ogirv101 3 years ago
Whatever no reason in arguing two different mentalities. Einstein and Hawking still believe in a supreme creator though. I don't care if it isn't the Christian one, as long as they believe in a creator it's fine with me.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"Creationists believe:
- The world was created by a biblical god"
"I only ever said that Creationism is the belief in the biblical god which according to all definitions it is! "
let's see the real definition:
"belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities"
Please explain why it says often and not always? Do you want to keep looking stupid?
ogirv101 3 years ago
"I know the difference between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design."
Alright, but i'm guessing your so called 154 IQ didn't help you because I was talking about Creationism and young earth creationism. ID is a proponent of both beliefs.
"Creationism isn't the belief that god made us, it's the belief that the biblical god made us"
Again the idiot confuses Creationism and young earth creationism. I'm a creationist, but I don't believe the biblical God created us.
ogirv101 3 years ago
yes I know young earth creationism is linked to fundamental biblical literists of the Christianity, you still don't know the difference between young earth creationism and creationism.
WOW! i'm being an ignorant brat? please, recalcitrant sophomoric morons liek you don't understand simple differences, Creationism ( the belief that a supreme being created the Universe) different from young earth creationism ( literal interpretation of the holy scripture).
Can you brain understand?
ogirv101 3 years ago
"I know about all that crap but the thing is creationism is linked to the bible"
it's also linked to many other beliefs, I don't see where you're getting at? Dawkins considers himself somewhat as a creationist at times considering he believes aliens created us.
"creationist means "the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis""
of course, you've proven once again that you don't know what creationism is.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"Einstein didn't believe in creationism not evolution, this is because evolution wasn't discovered until over 100 years after Einsteins death. "
First of all I think you're confused with young earth creationism and creationism. young earth creationism started in the 1930's after teh scopes trial, Einstein died in the 1950's, but creationism (belief in a higher being creating us has existed as long as there was a belief in God.)
ogirv101 3 years ago
"Hawking isn't even religious"
Hawking is a Deist, he does not believe in a personal God but he believes God created the Universe and their proportioned laws of the Universe, so did Einstein making them Creationists.
"he doesn't believe in god"
yes he does, how stupid do you sound, i have extensive knwoledge about his beliefs.
" it is impossible for an atheist/agnostic to be creationist."
yes it is possible, Dawkins says that it's possible for atheists to believe aliens created.
ogirv101 3 years ago
"Creationists are limited to the bible, Evolutionists are limited to the universe. "
Are you stupid or do you not understand the concept of creationism? Creationism is the belief that God created the Universe and it's laws, it isn't bound by young earth creationism. Einstein and hawking are both creationist, while VFX is a young earth creationist. I wouldn't expect an idiot like you to understand that though.
Evolutuon supports the Bible!
ogirv101 3 years ago
Right on.
God has no place in civil government.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
unfortunately, pretty much all modern governments are founded on religion. the main exception is the american government which was founded by a group of men who were predominantly atheist, but has since developed into a government based on christianity. even barack obama, who was born a muslim, had to swear on the bible at his inauguration to the american presidency. like it or not, international governments are based on religious fundamentals.
bigjesse1985 3 years ago
"Pretty much all modern governments are founded on religion."
I'm not so sure about that.
Even if 100% of them were,
it's still an important thing to fight.
I mean, organized crime rules much of America, too,
but that's no reason to sit idly by and let it increase, hey?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
most modern governments are though. even the more recent ones (such as the former yugoslavian states and the central-african nations formed following civil wars) include religion at the heart of their political ethos. but i don't think fighting is the correct approach. that just leads to civil war. if it was possible, rejection should be the "weapon-of-choice", but it would require total cooperation from the entire public, an impossible feat methinks!
bigjesse1985 3 years ago
Where can I hear this Choir sing U2" With or without you" in its entirety ?
flyingscience 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolutionists are tools
kuckold 3 years ago
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
A 10 pound british note is worth much more than a 10 dollar american note. Darwin wins.
bitchinz 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We kicked the British out. We win...we won.
DisneyGator 3 years ago
And then the British burned down Washington DC in the war of 1812. Oh, us Canadians helped too!
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
they let U.S.A win because they put you in dept forever muhaha
bboychamploo 3 years ago
plain naive...
gairero 3 years ago
Britain without a doubt is the pinnacle of Human Civilization.
jrcanary 4 years ago 4
I'm fine with Darwin's research personally. He proved that evolution existed, it does, it's just not the origin of life. Whether or not he said that it was the origin of life, I do not recall, but if so then that is where he used fact for fiction as many today like to do.
GamerGuy1k 4 years ago
His book was called "The origin of species"
hughjarrse 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Scientists are fuckin' geeks! Why would we listen to what they have to say about anything!!!
zebrastriper1 4 years ago
"Scientists are fuckin' geeks! Why would we listen to what they have to say about anything!!!" Well for one thing without scientists you'd probably spend most of your life clubbing animals with sticks for food, instead of enjoying living in a warm house with electricity hot running water and most importantly, the internet. Think before you speak. People will think more of you that way.
jrcanary 4 years ago 11
yay for the english!
nidies 4 years ago 3
Ok,. well today it is 2.08 gods to our 1 darwin,.. what shall i buy??,.. might get a bible, a koran, and a star of david and play "Celebrity Religion Death Match",.. see who wins,.. Not who you'd think,.. yep,.. it was the SACRED COW,.. outsider at 50/1
Aberloth123 4 years ago
Really? Darwin is on the 10 pound bill/note? That is awesome!
GeneticistAtheist 4 years ago
Yes Darwin is on our £10, we even have Michael Faraday on our £20, we didn't rule the world for 1000yrs for nothing (That was a joke, just in case!)
hughjarrse 4 years ago
Creationists are dumb.
sethomas84 5 years ago 2
That's a tautology.
mf103 5 years ago
Christian Science, that's an oxymoron!
Creationists are dumb ταυτολογία (in the Greek for Hovind fans)
hughjarrse 4 years ago
and since: £ > $
therefore:
Darwin > God.
Pandacraft 5 years ago
Well, I might not go that far, there's only one Darwin. but there are 100's of Gods!.. as I type the exchange rate is 1.89 Gods to 1 Darwin
hughjarrse 5 years ago
in the hindu religion each person in this world can have 1 hindu god to themselves. but all other gods are idolotries, theres only 1 true God, and pandacraft has got it flipped around. it should be:Darwin < God. Darwin is most likely burning in hell right now for starting all this nonsense.
jacobbjames333 5 years ago
*yawn*
last i checked, Darwin was dead, so he doesn't have to worry about nut-bars and there imaginary hell. [which is an almost heavenly thought]
Pandacraft 5 years ago
i have a question, do either hughjarrse or pandacraft believe in spirits or ghosts?
jacobbjames333 5 years ago