"Check out my videos "Religion is Ridiculous" (specifically christianity)...good stuff...rate it! Christians i CHALLENGE you to watchit with an open mind.....Anti-theists watch my vids and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!"
Your statement is false. You say you do not believe in God because...........and list reasons. This is not the case. You do not believe in God because you have chosen not to. The list of reasons are placed after your decision and are rational support for your previously decided choice.
To believe in God or not is choice. Billions of Christians believe and confirm evidence of believe. You cannot accept their evidence, because you have previously decided not to!
you have read the bible but have not understood it. you cant just read it and say what you think it said is fact. you just dont understand thats your issue so whatever, there is an old testement and a new one. both show 2 different parts of god. and he is eternal he has no creator cause he is one. he just exists, and humans dont understand that. i barely do but i live by faith knowing he is real through my experiences.
Use your God-given free will, don’t let it get too late we are living in the last days and Jesus our Saviour, who loves our souls, is coming soon, please believe this - it's the Truth and the Good News that Jesus can and will save your soul if you turn to Him. Please pray now for Jesus to be your Lord and Saviour. Read Luke 16:19-31
science cannot rule out that God exists - miracles which are in some sense explainable as chance phenomena do not preclude God’s action, since God is free to act both inside and outside the laws He created and keeps in being. Given this very real uncertainty, the
scientific mind should be aware that its inferences are imperfect, and may be
If the null hypothesis is true, then the world should look a certain way: material phenomena should obey certain laws w/o exception, & all “spiritual” experience should be explainable in purely material, naturalistic terms. If the alternative hypothesis is true, the hypothesis that God exists should explain certain phenomena (material or spiritual) more completely than the hypothesis that he does not. In this case, it becomes more difficult to maintain the hypothesis that God does not exist.
I could argue for hours with no end why I believe in God but that won't make you into a believer. All I have is faith. Your belief that there is no God is just a null hypothesis, I would like to challenge your hypothesis by that I mean I want you to prove that God does not exist. I find myself having an alternative hypothesis: God exists. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, that is all.
Why Christians witness to the lost and why God sent his Son Jesus to save the world. On youtube type in (John 3:16 - The Story of Love) and watch this wonderful video.
While most of you choose not to believe in God...i DO believe in Him. I do wanna ask and share a thought with yall real quick though. WHAT IF, us Christians are right...that means all of you who rejected God, no matter how good you are, will spend an eternity in Hell. But if yall are right...we Christian don't lose nothing...at least we will be remembered as good people who stood up for something. God gives the FREE gift of salvation, what have you got to lose? you've got everything to gain!
@Jhig5323 Whos yall? If you want to share a thought with him/her put @yall. I'm glad you're a christian just to hedge your bets, you must be very fulfilled. I dont reject god, i dont believe in him. You christians are so arrogant. Your god is just one of many man made deities that have been used over milennia to control the population. Christians use the word flock for a reason. Baaah.
You are entitled to your opinion, however, I disagree entirely. You, my friend have what is called "invincible ignorance". This ignorance in which some reside in which it is impossible for them to come to a belief in God -- is an adequate means to contribute to the accomplishment of the purpose of the universe, which is the manifestation of the goodness of God. Man's turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is bidden to turn himself to God. To be continueeed...
Therefore, if you do not allow yourself to believe in God that is your choice. There are some people who will not believe in God as I said before but bcuz of God's mercy he will forgive you. You can live your life with the belief that God does not exist but in my opinion I think it would be best to turn to God as it does not hurt to believe in Him. I just think its just foolish to live as if there is no God when there is no scientific proof that says there isn't. You alone must believe in God.
@itsKr1st3L Following that logic you must believe in Unicorns, fairies, elves, goblins, every other god that has been invented, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. You must also believe in the presumption of guilt, i mean, he must be a murderer, there is no forensic evidence to the contrary. You believe a claim without evidence that you would not do in any other aspect of your life, and then have the bare arsed cheek to call those who don't foolish.
Noah fit seven of every clean animal and two of unclean. and why would sea life need to be on the ark? they live in the sea a flood would not kill them!
I'm Agnostic, meaning I believe that there is no knowledge that God doesnt or does exist. Mostly because of Christian's faulty claims, but here's to Atheists, IF evolution is real (it has a lot of logic, but some is quite faulty) then WHY do the fish, amphibians, and reptiles that evolved from each other still exist? And all creatures all have a similar design (not intelligent design like it says in the bible).
@fgt73 We are not talking about one being that became an ape and then a human, we are talking about millions of generations that, adding small changes every generation, creates beings different from their ancestors.
@fgt73 Some of those decedents don’t change much and are basic the same species (like nowadays apes), but some of them gather such an amount of change that they are completely different (like humans). So we have an common ancestor, decedent that are basically like them and others that are not, got it? :-)
I was thinking, if atheists dont believe there is anything after your life on earth, and that there is no reason for us living or being here at all, then why can atheists be so intent on trying to prove that their theory is the true theory? wouldnt it be logical if they just let everyone mind their own buisness and not intervene in how other people live their lives?
and, by the way, statistics show that countries where there are many religious people, have less crime than "atheist" countries...
@daniellanting Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.
i like the title "atheism vs christianity" as though your mission is to disprove christianity? ....try and disprove God. You cant. Its impossible and your mind is to weak. And homo sapians are not humans, humans are humans, show me a genetic link between "homosapians" and humans if this video be true.
@shootomatic *Homo sapien is the taxonomical name for human you stupid shit. And you can't prove any god either, so that makes your mind weak too, right?
@shootomatic Homo sapiens is the scientific name to humans. It is not necessary to prove that something is not (like “There is no god”), but it is necessary to prove something is (like “God exists”). So, can you prove God?
Being a christian is the best and it should be the only way to go the rest are bad and christian is the best there is only 1 go,d so aethism is bad and the other religions so go christian.
Well, somebody has certiainly gotten their mainline talking points in a row, God forbid *pun* somebody does some actual thinking or real analysis of what they think.
the only god is within you. is your hope faith, humour, realise what is going in this our life......rise above the hatred...because that is designed to keep us from evolving....fear...imagine the conditioning thats been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years....just because theres a few that want to control us...think outside...think universe and love...we are here NOW....conquer the idiots who think they can control us
Unless that desire for something beyond this world is simply an outgrowth of world-bound curiosity and idealism that has no actual referent... think about how hollow a desire for the 'perfect' food or 'perfect' sex is.
7. No Christian has ever said they are without sin. Christians commit murder, partake in adultery. Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. Without God, morals are arbitrary. They are defined by society. Something that is accepted in one culture, could be utter taboo in another. With God, there is a basis for morals. 8. How is Evolution progressing? I see no man-apes. I see no transitional forms at all. Is Evolution waiting for the perfect time to sporadically create a transition?
6. There is a difference between judgement and murder. God commanded Israel to invade Canaan as judgment for their wickedness. They partook in human sacrifice (murder), beastiality, etc. God did not condone murder, he told them to invade Canaan to send judgement. As God did to Israel. The invasion of Israel by Babylon was sent as a judgment by God as well. The only difference was that God actually spoke to the Jews. Continuing arguments are in the next comment.
5. This argument of "Who created God?" is quite inept. According to philosophy, when defining an explanation as the best explanation, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. This leads to an infinite regress. You would have to give an explanation of the explanation of God, and so on, which would destroy science because you would never have an explanation for anything if this argument were accepted as true. Arguments continue in the next comment.
3. You are comparing two completely different topics. You are comparing a character in a children's story to an all-powerful being that created our vast universe. It wouldn't be wise to think this way, or you'll be mentioning how transitional forms of creatures are good evidence for Evolution.
4. Noah's Ark can be found on Mt. Ararat.
I will once again continue my arguments in my next comment. :) I would like to remind you that I am simply trying to debate in a friendly way. :)
1. The difference between the virgin birth of Christ and virgin births is that it actually happened. There is historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth being born by Mary.
2. Homo Sapiens? Really? By geological evidence, we have discovered that bones decay SO much faster than what we thought. If homo sapiens did exist, then they must have lived a few hundred years ago, since the bones would be completely decayed by now in 150,000-200,000 years. I will comment my arguments in the next comment.
Only one thing to say. Faith is just what it says it is. Faith. My belief is that there is something greater out there, that we didn't evolve from monkeys (although we could've been some simian-looking M-effers at first), but that we were created for a reason and for a purpose. I know that may sound like naive dreaming, but either way, whether there is a god or there isn't a god, we are all human, and regardless of faith or non-faith, we should love each other like I love cake.
@crazy4lego Ha ha. My friend, pie is a whole new ball game. But just for kicks I'll throw pies and cobblers and other assorted pastries in just to make my point.
I pray for this lost person and anyone who listens to her. Jesus says seven times in the New Testament “if you have ears to hear”. It makes me sad that so many souls will follow her into the lake of fire. God bless you now.
It is possible to bind a man but not to make captive the Word of God; speech is the condemnation of the wicked, and hence they seek to destroy it; but it is they only who die, and the Word of Truth remains to judge their memory!
like it is a world wide accepted thing(COEXISTING). All of it is used to control people don't know what they are talking about. Look at the 2011 bibles they have taken gender out of them, who do they say they are Christians. Christians are Anti Christ and they try to put God in everything for your MONEY(TITHING). Look at t.v. the gospel channel what do they always talk about before and after MONEY(TITHING) what do they say they are Christian. (ANTI-CHRIST)
Gentiles and Israelites. The Gentiles knew that they couldn't prove that Jesus was a fake because he already did works that was talked about through out. So they creating something else, it seemed bigger and better but it wasn't real. Santa is a God which is a fake, created by people who had pushed the name Christians out into the world (anti christ). Christmas/Christians do you see the similarities. So they use this stuff to confuse you and they change words in the bible so that it seems
even if they say they are, those would be false prophets. There is no such thing as a Christian, God never called his people Christians only Disciples of Christ. Christians was in the bible but people forget the meaning and what it meant Christians was a mockery of the Disciples of Christ. Same thing as saying faggot instead of saying gay. Yes there are a lot of people saying that their god was first but that was also talked about in the bible.
All false. Noah didn't take two of every kind. It was two of each unclean and seven of each clean animals(there was certain kinds). Only 16,000 animals was on the boat. Not every man is of his image, everything doesn't have the breath of God. Scientist have been proven wrong countless times. In the bible it did say that there was a time to kill. Yes, there have been fights over religion, but God isn't religious or traditional he is all about relationship. Not everyone is a Disciple of Christ
This is a very interesting and informative video :) Although, the comments are much more entertaining lol. "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded." And no, I don't care if that offended anyone, as many of you seem easily offended.
Comment on places like this and people pre-judge you. I consider myself agnostic. I think all religious traditions and doctrines are outdated and subsequently vulnerable to shredding. But I don't believe in having a closed tunnel visioned mind, unwilling to consider alternatives. Atheists are as guilty sometimes of that as religious. People need to come out of their burrows and think for themselves , not mimic sheep in following what you've been told and choose to believe because it might be hip
Theres a God. We don't need scientific proof becuzscience cant prove it. God is a whole other entity we cant prove becuz God wuldn't be God anymore if gods existence cud be proven. there's a scientific explanation with "love" & theories with how the world came to be but there's a whole other aspect that comes along with it. Even the devil believes in God. Science has it's limits- science cant prove everything on such deep level becuz humans don't understand HOW God exists. It's all about trust.
@MissRUSerious Why wouldn't god be god anymore if his existence could be proven? Oh and you've got it wrong, religion has limits not science. Religion limits you to one answer which you have to believe without any evidence or you are threatened with eternal torment. Science, however tries to find the truth, it certainly doesn't know everything but it has no limits on what it can achieve when it is not being hampered by gullible fairy tale enthusiasts like you. Your trust is misplaced.
@redjove2000 God wouldn't be God if he could be prove--God would just be one of us and not all powerful, faith in God is a grace (gift) from God, only those who accept this is able to understand. so I'm glad you actually question his existence!
the devil wanted it his way, so he needs to go to burger king(they do it your way). but that burger becomes a turd that gets flushed. Jesus said He is the only way because He is the only God and with Him we live forever. So the devil feeds us lies everyday instead of the truth(Jesus) so that he(the devil) can live longer because he knows it has been written in the bible(KJV) that he will be flushed like the turd he is.
@Loudale There is most certainly a God. The creator of this world that we live on and creator of everything in and around it. Something cannot bring itself into existence... therefore "stuff" has to have a cause.
@Loudale There is most certainly a God. The creator of this world that we live on and creator of everything in and around it. Something cannot bring itself into existence... therefore "stuff" has to have a cause.
@endlich93 Let's take natural phenomenas for example, people in ancient times can't explain them so there must be a "god" behind it. Plain and simple as the good old religion.
@ianman6 not really. god can indeed be uncaused if it is something that has always existed. this indeed is possible. do we ever think about what caused space? it is possible for space to have always existed, just as it is possible for something like god to have always existed. clearly you are unread in philosophy. maybe you should read up on the subject before making yourself look retarded.
@rmsprowler Clever. Make a teleological case for primal cause, and then stop when you've reached the point where you can call it God. I'm quite well read in philosophy, but I believe you meant theology, a particularly vacuous genre of it. I don't need to waste my time with a 'subject' which assumes it's premise without foundation and then works circularly to justify it. You might want to think twice before you speak lest you make yourself look retarded.
@ianman6 again, god can be shown to be consistent with the state of things as they are today (go read, as you claim to have read, but clearly haven't because if you did you would understand the arguments written by van inwagen or other philosophers on the subject). as van inwagen states, the argument has come down to a prima facie argument (if you don't know what that is, you haven't read philosophy as you claim to have done) about which is more likely assuming the state of things.
@rmsprowler Wow, what a backpedal. Not deterred by finding out I have a degree in the very subject he brought up fruitlessly and unmeritoriously, he falls back to pseudophilosophy. You can make God fit with any view of reality you want, because you are constructing God post-hoc. Van Imwagen is just another of your favorite sophists, he still fails to establish his premise properly. Regardless, he poses more problems for Christians than he makes their case. Also, he grossly simplifies reality to
...make it congruent with a God. His God is nothing more than a God of the gaps, but worse, his gaps only exist in his paulty simplification of reality. And finally, who said anything about proving? After all this, you still didn't understand my first correction of your error? Atheism is the lack of belief, not necessarily the assertion that there is no, god or gods. Of course you cannot 'disprove' the existence of God, but you can prove it. Yet the religious have been entirely unable to do so.
@ianman6 and as for for the "working circularly to justify it," you should be careful about stating things that sound nice but are absolutely false. under the premise of god the state of things in our world today can be justified (hence God can be shown to be consistent, as the premise of God cannot be disproved.). if you have a proof that God does not exist i would love to hear it (of course you don't have one. I'm just humoring myself.).
@rmsprowler Incredible. You challenge my assertion that theology engages in purely circular justification for the existence of God by demonstrating exactly that and proving my point? Ouch. "if you have a proof that God does not exist " I don't. Do I need it? Why would I need to disprove something that hasn't been supported by evidence? The burden of proof is on the positive claiment, in this case yourself. The real 'state of things' is more consistent with the lack of a Christian god.
@ianman6 lol so i would then question what is your justification on how the earth came to be and all this. if the big bang theory, then my original statement applies. if not the big bang theory then what? maybe you agree with (forgot who the author was of this paper) that the entire universe is a big organism that self generates? i really don't see how you can assert that there is more evidence in favor of there being no god. in fact i would argue there is less evidence for atheism.
@rmsprowler So you were only pretending to be well read in philosophy then. Because basic logic, which I must apparently repeat here, requires that the one making the positive claim provide evidence. The negative position on a claim requires no evidence. You cannot presume there is a God just because your poor understanding of the development of the universe coupled with intellectual laziness affords you the space to just say 'God did it', and then expect someone else to disprove it.
@ianman6 lol i appreciate how you so slyly dodged my question. even in assuming atheism, this requires certain positive assertions, which require you (as you have so nicely stated previously) require positive proof. you have yet to answer how you believe, then, the earth's existence came to be and how this solar system and everything came to be. my guess is that your explanation is poor and that you really believe, "that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing...."
@rmsprowler Again, I will repeat my clarification of the definition of atheism. It is the lack of belief (a negative, not positive position) in a god or gods. There are not positive assertions involved by necessity, only by extension (even then, only likely and not necessarily). So I do not need any evidence to reject a claim for which you provide no evidence all, let alone any compelling evidence. As for your 'question', it is nothing but a Gish gallup. It is so unwieldy as to be unanswerable.
@ianman6 again noob, the lack of belief in god or gods comes along with positive assertions whether you like it or not. you can say it doesn't over and over and over and over again, but you're choosing to ignore barriers that are actually there. NOT BELIEVING IN GOD STILL REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION FOR HOW THE EARTH IS. you can't ignore these assertions as much as i know you really really really really really really want to so as to make it easy for you to defend your "atheism."
@rmsprowler Still toiling in failure. 'God' is not an explanation of any kind, whatsoever. It describes no process, no mechanism. And you conveniently ignore the brief explanation for the formation of the Earth, which is more than enough to point you in the direction for further inquiry if it weren't for the fact that you are completely lazy and intellectually dishonest. Planet formation is a well understood process, and there is no God involved. You ignore evidence and supplant it with a...
@ianman6 as for my question being "unwieldy." i can answer it from the basis of the premise of god. can you not give a reasonable explanation under the premise of no god? i thought so.
@rmsprowler non-explanation. 'God did it with his powers and it can't be explained by science'. Well news flash, it has been explained by science and god had nothing to do with it. For the last time, it is only your own personal lack of knowledge that leaves room for god. My lack of belief does not, by any stretch of the imagination, require any positive claims, no matter how you try to twist it. Aren't you tired of failing miserably? Doesn't it leave a bitter taste in your mouth after a while?
The 'barriers' you speak of are imaginary, and only to you. Scientists encounter no such barriers as the ones you posit. It's like you are deliberately ignoring, astrophysics, physics, geology, and even philosophy (which despite your claim to the contrary, you clearly have not even the slightest grasp of). You have the audacity to think your position defensible since I do not make efforts to fix your ignorance? It is your responsibility to educate yourself. Your stupidity, your problem. Not mine
@rmsprowler I need not 'slyly dodge' it. You asked me to explain the entire origin and development of the universe, a question which entire fields of physics and cosmology are dedicated to. Basically you are too lazy to do your own homework and can only resort to semantic games to 'win' an argument. The formation of the universe is explained by the big bang, which does NOT state that 'something' came from 'nothing'. That is in fact a Creationist theory. Your failure to recognize this basic fact
@rmsprowler ...betrays your extremely poor knowledge of the subjects you attempt to dispute. The Earth was formed as any planet was, through the gradual contraction of an accretion disc due to gravity over time. The accretion disc arose as a byproduct of star formation (our Sun), which is also explained in detail (and with overwhelming supporting evidence) by astrophysics. Etcetera, etcetera. There is no need, at any point, to unnecessarily postulate a god. Only your personal ignorance provides
@rmsprowler the space to do so. The only place left for your God is before the Big Bang, to which 'he' has had to retreat, and still you cannot provide any justification for why we should presume he is to be found there. the 'God' theory explains nothing at all with any predictive power. Science does exactly that. And not only do you try to fit God into genuine gaps in scientific knowledge, you put him in gaps in your own, which do not correlate to real gaps. Atheism is the default position on..
@rmsprowler on the existence of God. To assume otherwise would require evidence, not vice-versa. If I said I have an invisible dragon in my pocket, it is not incumbent upon you to prove otherwise, for I have provided no reason or evidence for its existence. Yet you try, incorrectly, to put a negative postulate on the same ontological plain as a positive one. You have yet to provide any compelling evidence for a god and your only recourse is to challenge me to provide evidence against. Fail.
@ianman6 and as for you argument about positive assertions using your "invisible dragon analogy," you again misstate the truth. let's say we were trying to figure out what's behind a locked, unopenable door. i hypothesize there are clothes behind, but you hypothesize there is nothing. both assertions, in fact, do lie on the same "ontological plain" as you wish to call it. hypothesizing there is nothing behind it is as much a positive assertion as the fact there are clothes behind it.
@rmsprowler Your analogy is the misrepresentation here, not mine. And it is dishonest at that. The assertion that a God exists where there is no evidence for it is akin to saying that behind your supposed closed door is an equally supernatural being. My position is akin to saying 'I don' believe you', not that there is nothing. You have continued to misrepresent atheism with a strawman and steadfastly refused to adopt my simple correction. You are therefore engaging in wilful dishonesty.
@ianman6 you again oversimplify the argument, convincing yourself you've got it all figured out when you, in fact, don't at all. again, my reply, is YOU FAIL.
@rmsprowler I never claimed to have 'all figured out'. What is all? What are you even talking about? You are the one who brought in a demand for the explanation of 'everything', the inability to satisfy your dishonest demand in a YouTube commentary taken as support for your assertion that 'God' (without further elucidation) is the explanation, is justified. When I correctly and with the overwhelming weight of evidence on my side answer some of your questions, you accuse me of having answer for..
...everything? Your arguments, if I grant them the honour of being called as such, are nothing but cheap word games and anyone reading sees it. You are the simplifier here. You ask an oversimplistic question (explain how the universe and Earth 'got here') and provide a simplistic answer ('God did it') with no attendant description of how. I break down your question into manageable bits, and you demand I answer 'all or nothing' lest you maintain a fictitious space for your God postulate. Finally,
@rmsprowler ...when I do no such thing, you cry foul in frustration at your own inadequacy and claim 'I have an asnwer for everything'? You are the one with the answer for everything. The answer is God, and it is a cop-out answer without explanatory power. Further, it still fails to account for the complex and undirected processes which underlie the answers to the questions you ask. You are not only lying to me, you are lying to yourself.
@ianman6 this video summarizes just part of the highly scientific arguments against some of the things which atheists would need to claim. i could write them all out, but will defer you to this video for just a piece of what's out there. /watch?v=D_I2xyoY3uc
@rmsprowler Satan invented evolution. Which part is the 'highly scientific' part? 'Highly' is not an appropriate adverb to qualify the adjective 'scientific'. Something is either scientific or it isn't. The video you linked to, sadly, isn't. In fact, it's not even the best case creationists or Christians have for their beliefs. It's quite awful. VenomFangX is a known delusional moron with severe psychological issues, and is demonstrably unable to grasp scientific reasoning. You'll have to do...
@ianman6 wow you watched a 10 minute video in 2 minutes. hmmmmm. you can ignore the arguments if you wish but will continue in your ignorance. do you want me to re-state the scientific things he stated from a different source? i could but the point is that the arguments are valid, yet you wish to ignore them.
@rmsprowler I have seen the video before, several times. Like I said, nothing new. It's like you are stuck in a time machine. The arguments are not valid, nor are they scientific. He is not a scientist, does not quote scientists, does not source any science at all in fact. There is no science present in the entire video. The arguments are not ignored, they are already dismantled. But you would know this if you had bothered to actually do research instead of unquestioningly accepting.
@rmsprowler better than this, but since this latest 'argument' of yours characterizes the overall thrust of your case, I think it's safe to say this is the best you have. In which case, you have no case at all. Look, putting aside our debate here for a second, you genuinely have no honest or reasonable case without using deception (mostly to yourself) or ignorance (of basic scientific knowledge). You owe it to yourself to do some genuine, honest engagement with the truth. I have not seen a new
@rmsprowler argument for your case in a long time, and I have been searching. The case is dead, and you lost it. Give up. It is truly a waste of time, energy and breath to uphold a non-existent position that has been demonstrably dismantled and is divorced from reality, let alone modern scientific knowledge. The only arguments you have presented are old, worn and debunked (some for decades), yet you persist. If atheists are correct, at least you have nothing to lose, right?
@ianman6 well you can continue to believe all these arguments are "debunked" when in fact all of them haven't and many are weakly refuted at best. and this is in fact only a beginning to arguments against atheism. i could go on and on but you will continue to ignorantly claim they've all been "debunked." you can continue to be atheist, but will only do so to your own demise.
@rmsprowler They have indeed been debunked, and demonstrably so. You only choose to ignore the unassailable logic which refutes tired creationist canards because you have an ideology to protect, at the expense of honesty and integrity. Again, the only way to be a creationist is to be a liar, a self-deceiver, a fool, or a combination thereof. I will play one last game with you, and then I am going to bed. It is past midnight here. The game is you pick any argument in the video, and I dismantle it
@ianman6 just humoring you for the present, 2 arguments that would be interesting to hear you "easily dismantle" are 1. violations of evolution to the second law of entropy and 2. irreducably complex parts of organisms (eyes, flagellum in single-cell organisms, etc.) also including the formation of 1 million combinations of pairs of dna into the most basic form of life.
@rmsprowler I suppose I was fooling myself in expecting better. Let's see if you'll be honest enough to cede to the evidence. #1. Evolution in no way, shape, or form, at any time, violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that closed systems will tend to decay toward chaos over time. Evolution does not exist in a closed system. You are misapplying the second law, which is not your fault since you are parroting creationist lies. But I'm sure you will deny or ignore this and move on
@ianman6 wow that was the weakest response i could have possibly imagined. lol this is really hilarious. you have again convinced yourself of something which you have no idea. it's pretty obvious to me you've never taken a physics class. lol wow man. that really was pathetic. you really need to do better than that. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
@rmsprowler You have not met my answers honestly. You asked, I provided the genuine scientific answer, and you simply dismissed and patted yourself on the back. Congratulations, you've continued to deceive yourself. Will you do so your whole life or will you grow a streak of honesty? I think the former is more likely. As for your strange reversal, you finally admit the case against God is consistent and that your objections might be invalid (they are, as I have demonstrated)...
@rmsprowler as though nothing happened. #2 No biologist without a dogma to uphold accepts the concept of irreducible complexity. You would have to ignore the hundreds of light-sensing organs and organelles which are precursors to the eye, and which demonstrate every component thereof in increasing complexity, to claim the eye is irreducibly complex. Likewise for the flagellum, which has been shown to act as an injection mechanism when you remove many of it's parts. Again, deception is necessary
@ianman6 well if i would have known you were going to wave your hands over every argument i present, i could have convinced myself that they were false arguments better than you. sounds like you need to do a little more research as i am not impressed nor even slightly convinced. in going from no light sensing to light sensing and from light sensing to eyes requires irreducible complexity. you simply wave your hands over this and asuume it's no problem. all i can say is fail.
@rmsprowler How is providing the gist of the scientific answers to your questions 'hand waving'? You want me to do all of your homework for you before you start thinking? Like spoon feeding a baby who keeps spitting food out. You want more details go the relevant scientific literature. I am not your tutor, I've done more than my share and more than you deserve, frankly. I've done the scientific case justice but you want me to present the entirety of the scientific body of knowledge to you, here?
@ianman6 i guess arguing these objections wasn't a good idea over youtube. was already aware of the answers you gave and was, i guess, hoping for more. i have read about the flagellum argument and the debate does not seem to have been settled.
@rmsprowler The flagellum debate is settled for everyone except Behe and his tiny cohort of dogmatic supporters. He claimed the flagellum was irreducibly complex, a simple positive statement that can be proven true or false. In fact, it was a scientific argument! So I'll give it that. But the proof is in the pudding. If true, then it could not be shown that the parts of the flagellum had any function without the other parts. If false, the opposite could be shown. And it was. That case is closed.
@rmsprowler Even Behe has abandoned the flagellum argument. He still argues for irreducible complexity, but is struggling like an amputee in quicksand to find an example to use. So until he does, his theory is flat. We have not found a single biological system for which there are no simpler, componental precursors. Period.
@rmsprowler This is why you are still holding on to a dead case. You refuse to follow the rules of logic and evidence you apparently tout. If you had a shred of honesty you would not have presented such a poor case that has been dissected for years, nor arguments which are answered in high school biology. Why do you keep lying? You are the one hand waving. Notice how I have answered every single one of your objections, and you simply moved on as though I didn't. You are the only one guilty of...
@ianman6 By the way, game over and you lost. If you want to play again, you will need to find arguments which are tenable. I suggest you put down you 'How to Defend Christianity with Lies and Ignorance' pamphlet and go read. In fact, there are much better cases for your position, I'm surprised you haven't presented them. They are by no means very good, but much better than the simple dishonest drivel you peddled here.
@ianman6 there are more, which is what i stated from the beginning. the video was only a bit of what's out there. as for you winning, that is open to debate, as i would say i have won.
@rmsprowler I know there is more out there. I have probably read more of it than you have. I could have put your case better than you have, in fact, and still I would have dismantled it. And of course you would say you won, you can't lose in your mind. God is on your side. You don't need silly things like 'evidence' and 'reason' if you have faith. In fact, I don't know why you bother to try your case, just say you have faith and you don't even need a debate. You've won, permanently.
@rmsprowler Before I leave, I'll point out your most glaring dishonesty and your typical avoiding of the issue once you've been presented with a stronger case than yours, or an answer for which you have no retort. You brought up the issue of anthropology of religion (for some odd reason, since it had nothing to do with proving the existence of god) and by chance (since you couldn't have known) I have a graduate degree in the field. Upon learning this and being corrected on the lie you declared..
@rmsprowler , instead of being honest and conceding that you in fact were totally unqualified to speak on the matter, attempted to debase my degree (which was, you should know, difficult to earn) or dismiss it and then avoid the territory since you were now aware I would call you on your bullshit in it. This trend of yours continued throughout the debate, and was a red flag from the beginning. I noted it and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but true to your type you persisted in shady tactics.
@rmsprowler I have already exposed your piss-poor grasp on logic (your self-proclaimed strength was philosophy, right?) and your complete lack of awareness of the science you claim to argue against (you don't even understand the big bang except for some apologetics website strawman version of it.) So in essence, you have already been playing and losing this game since or conversation began, but I'm generous and you get another free try. Go ahead.
@ianman6 lol you would love to think that you have exposed something, but it's not my logic, it's your stupidity. i have been winning this argument since the beginning yet of course i can tell you love to feed yourself fake messages that you are in fact "winning." you're not winning any more than charlie sheen. go continue to fail at life.
@rmsprowler to uphold the irreducible complexity argument, which is universally denounced by evidence. Finally, #3 we have a clear map of molecular replication that leads from simple to complex molecules bonding and forming self-replicating yet pre-biotic molecules, providing a clear basis to form biotic life. The lie you repeat in this case is that we must somehow start at 1 million and explain that in one leap, ignoring the staggering series of increasingly complex examples before it.
@rmsprowler however, in hearing your arguments against the objections i left, even if the objections i raised were invalid, all it does is show CONSISTENCY, NOT PROOF, of the lack of the existence of God. I would respond with the same challenge to you. ask me some way in which the premise of there being a God is inconsistent with the state of affairs in the life in which we live. i could just as well respond as you could with the objections i raise to you.
@rmsprowler yet in an astonishing feet of empty verbosity, you take that to provide strength for your case? Wow. I have already accepted your claim that a God can be shown to be consistent with the 'state of affairs' (whatever you mean by that) if you twist the concept of God to fit in the gaps. But the case without God remains supported by evidence while yours is not. i am bending over to give you more of a chance and you still fail. You choose between 2 answers the one without evidence.
@rmsprowler My M.A. is in anthropology, not philosophy. It is a degree that requires evidence, not mental masturbation and intellectual acrobatics. Philosophy is useless if divorced from facts. All you're doing is playing semantic word games and constructing you're own reality, which is what all religions do across culture (which you would know if you read any anthropology of religion). And it is a real M.A., not a 'so-called' one. Where's yours? Nowhere? B.A. in theology from low tier college?
@endlich93 How are you certain? And sure, I know that something cannot bring itself into existence magically. Rather than branding it as a gods doing though, i'd rather really find the cause, it's much more impressive, complex, and real.
I believe there isn't a god of any sorts. There is the eath we live on, and the universe that surrounds it. You just got to look around and SEE that. everything is of its own majesty and to pollute your mind, that you've gained through years of evolution, of adaptation and understanding, genetic changes that aren't science but natural, and to be taught to believe and fear some man made diety is ignorant to me. not to offend anyone. I will live and die and be at peace like milions before me.
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, then everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.
@rmsprowler Sorry, but that is ignorant. Stop discriminating against atheist and try to actually learn what it is before saying bullshit. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods. You're trying to say they believe in an awful summary of the big bang theory and how life started on earth. which is something completely different. Atheism is JUST the lack of belief in god(s) whether they believe the big bang theory is another story. so your definiton of atheism is bullshit.
@TheLoudale don't patronize me you retard. of course i'm well aware of what you say even before you i posted my original comment. but my question to you is, if you don't accept the big bang theory, how do you account for the earth's existence? hmm there's a question for you that i doubt you have a good answer to. If this is the case, maybe you should question your atheism.
@rmsprowler Retard? how offensive. I never said i didn't accept the big bang theory, i was clarifying that atheism is describing someone that lacks belief in god(s) The big bang theory is a theory and does not define what an atheist is so should not be used to define atheism. And your summary of the big bang theory was hardly up to par with what it really is. Therefore your comment you previously posted is basically bullshit.
@rmsprowler I have no reason to honestly. I posted a comment. You responded with a clearly rude comment about what you think about atheism. I call it bullshit. You call me retarded. I clarified. I'm done with this conversation. Have fun with your life.
@TheLoudale well if you're done with conversation then i get the last word. atheism is a bunch of garbage that people choose to believe because they have a crappy life. last word.
@TheLoudale Quite the piece of work this rmsprowler is, huh? I'm still not entirely convinced he isn't a troll, but I continue as though he isn't for the benefit of any intelligent readers who maybe genuinely wrestling certain questions with honesty and integrity (unlike the aforementioned prowler). If he continues to lie and play games I may cease and desist, but we'll see if he can at least take a step toward intellectual rigour and account for his failings.
@ianman6 I doubt that. For some reason most people with such bedridden beliefs blindly and sometimes violently defend their beliefs, no matter how unstable the foundation their beliefs are laid upon. Goodluck though :) i hope you make more progress than i have.
@rmsprowler Nice, you invent a completely false (and ridiculous) definition of atheism and then sarcastically dismiss it. That is textbook strawman, complete fail. What you've actually done is construct a definition composed entirely of your ignorance and called it 'atheism'. Let me correct you: atheism - the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. There. Just because you are personally ignorant of the reasons above, doesn't mean you can claim 'for no reason' and then say 'ergo, God'.
@rmsprowler Is accept the Big Bang theory because it is supported by staggering and overwhelming evidence. However, Big Bang theory does not equal atheism. Your definition was still incorrect. I could be an atheist and not believe what you said in your post. I could simply claim not to know. Luckily, we do know. But even then, your definition was not of the Big Bang. Again, you are just repeating strawmen constructed by your favorite apologetics website.
@ianman6 seriously though, if you read any anthropology of religion (if you know what that is) you cannot disprove nor prove the existence of god. God can be shown to be consistent with our world. i suggest you read up on some of that before seriously going with atheism.
@rmsprowler Hahaha megafail! I have an M.A. in anthropology with specialisation in comparative religion. You don't want to go there buddy. If you think the anthropology of religion has anything to do with proving or disproving God, you clearly haven't read a single, tiny bit of it.
@rmsprowler Oh I get it, you're a troll. I looked at your channel and then facepalmed. Sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. I'll stop playing 'feed the troll' now.
Teacher : Can you see God?.......
Class: No.....
Teacher: Can you touch God? ....
Class: No......
Teacher: Then there isn't a God! ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... *Student raises their hand and says* "Sir, can you see your brain?" .......
Teacher: No. .....
Student: Can you touch your brain?.....
Teacher: No.....
Student: Oh okay, so you don't have a brain?......
to have no faith is to be spiritually dead....intelligience and faith are not always in sync....it is never too late
HershelAlan 5 days ago
@HershelAlan That is absolute nonsense, beause the teacher COULD see their brain in any average hospital.
You, however, cannot see God. So you defeated your own argument.
DayDreamAscent 3 days ago
@DayDreamAscent...
I see GOD everyday...
Science and Faith r unusual things.
Science will tell u things as best it can.
Scientific "facts" constantly change..?
As we grow, so does our ability to explain our place in the Universe....
IF u have Faith, that last sentence has a different meaning than w/o faith.
To study the universe w/a "science mind" u need a telescope.
Until u begin to live the life God intended 4 u, u wont increase your understanding of the universe & why u r here.
HershelAlan 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Check out my videos "Religion is Ridiculous" (specifically christianity)...good stuff...rate it! Christians i CHALLENGE you to watchit with an open mind.....Anti-theists watch my vids and give them a thumbs up! Help spread the truth!"
gasmask4poop 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your statement is false. You say you do not believe in God because...........and list reasons. This is not the case. You do not believe in God because you have chosen not to. The list of reasons are placed after your decision and are rational support for your previously decided choice.
To believe in God or not is choice. Billions of Christians believe and confirm evidence of believe. You cannot accept their evidence, because you have previously decided not to!
neogovernment 6 days ago
you have read the bible but have not understood it. you cant just read it and say what you think it said is fact. you just dont understand thats your issue so whatever, there is an old testement and a new one. both show 2 different parts of god. and he is eternal he has no creator cause he is one. he just exists, and humans dont understand that. i barely do but i live by faith knowing he is real through my experiences.
portugaltheman6 1 week ago
Use your God-given free will, don’t let it get too late we are living in the last days and Jesus our Saviour, who loves our souls, is coming soon, please believe this - it's the Truth and the Good News that Jesus can and will save your soul if you turn to Him. Please pray now for Jesus to be your Lord and Saviour. Read Luke 16:19-31
KingdomSeeker2012 1 week ago
@KingdomSeeker2012 Wow... quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. Circular logic, anyone.
atheistram 1 week ago
damn he makes a pretty good point here
TheFozzybear2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
science cannot rule out that God exists - miracles which are in some sense explainable as chance phenomena do not preclude God’s action, since God is free to act both inside and outside the laws He created and keeps in being. Given this very real uncertainty, the
scientific mind should be aware that its inferences are imperfect, and may be
mistaken.
itsKr1st3L 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
itsKr1st3L 2 weeks ago
If the null hypothesis is true, then the world should look a certain way: material phenomena should obey certain laws w/o exception, & all “spiritual” experience should be explainable in purely material, naturalistic terms. If the alternative hypothesis is true, the hypothesis that God exists should explain certain phenomena (material or spiritual) more completely than the hypothesis that he does not. In this case, it becomes more difficult to maintain the hypothesis that God does not exist.
itsKr1st3L 2 weeks ago
I could argue for hours with no end why I believe in God but that won't make you into a believer. All I have is faith. Your belief that there is no God is just a null hypothesis, I would like to challenge your hypothesis by that I mean I want you to prove that God does not exist. I find myself having an alternative hypothesis: God exists. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, that is all.
itsKr1st3L 2 weeks ago 2
@itsKr1st3L And atheist's don't have enough faith to believe in your God.
atheistram 1 week ago
@atheistram Also the burden of proof is on YOU. We reject your claims, you assert them.
atheistram 1 week ago
GREAT VIDEO!
dkthg 2 weeks ago
Van coffe or w.e do your research BEFORE MAKING A INORGANIC video as this ok especially with evoultion REALLY ok
JovaniC04 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why Christians witness to the lost and why God sent his Son Jesus to save the world. On youtube type in (John 3:16 - The Story of Love) and watch this wonderful video.
sprinkle888 2 weeks ago
Go to atheismdestroyed.webs.com! All you Atheists and Christians come ask your questions and state your statements and lets see the TRUTH.
atheismdestroyed 3 weeks ago
peace plz check rekkitten on youtube will b shocked peace
thelebirtyangels 3 weeks ago
@Jhig5323 ok, what about all the Muslims, Hindus, Jews and countless other religions? Are they going to hell too?
brokeherlittlebones 4 weeks ago
While most of you choose not to believe in God...i DO believe in Him. I do wanna ask and share a thought with yall real quick though. WHAT IF, us Christians are right...that means all of you who rejected God, no matter how good you are, will spend an eternity in Hell. But if yall are right...we Christian don't lose nothing...at least we will be remembered as good people who stood up for something. God gives the FREE gift of salvation, what have you got to lose? you've got everything to gain!
Jhig5323 1 month ago
Fuck you
Mee551able 1 month ago
@Jhig5323 Whos yall? If you want to share a thought with him/her put @yall. I'm glad you're a christian just to hedge your bets, you must be very fulfilled. I dont reject god, i dont believe in him. You christians are so arrogant. Your god is just one of many man made deities that have been used over milennia to control the population. Christians use the word flock for a reason. Baaah.
redjove2000 4 weeks ago
@Jhig5323 couldnt of said it better
bonniehahahaha 2 weeks ago
Very interesting, well-made, thought-provoking video. The only comment I have is really directed toward Gene Roddenberry, who you quoted at the end.
We must question the logic of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who creates perfect humans who screw up, and then blame Him for their mistakes.
Onefleshabiding16 1 month ago
Convert to Christianity and save yourself. You must repent from your sinful ways.
fooddudebob 1 month ago
@fooddudebob y christianity?y ny Islam ot Judaism. no offence to the other religions, but these r the monotheistic ones
hasan75ify 3 weeks ago
You are entitled to your opinion, however, I disagree entirely. You, my friend have what is called "invincible ignorance". This ignorance in which some reside in which it is impossible for them to come to a belief in God -- is an adequate means to contribute to the accomplishment of the purpose of the universe, which is the manifestation of the goodness of God. Man's turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is bidden to turn himself to God. To be continueeed...
itsKr1st3L 1 month ago
Therefore, if you do not allow yourself to believe in God that is your choice. There are some people who will not believe in God as I said before but bcuz of God's mercy he will forgive you. You can live your life with the belief that God does not exist but in my opinion I think it would be best to turn to God as it does not hurt to believe in Him. I just think its just foolish to live as if there is no God when there is no scientific proof that says there isn't. You alone must believe in God.
itsKr1st3L 1 month ago
@itsKr1st3L
And there is No scientific proof he is. and I choose to believe that something is NOT true rather than it is if there is no proof.
GameReviewer1987 1 month ago
@itsKr1st3L Following that logic you must believe in Unicorns, fairies, elves, goblins, every other god that has been invented, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. You must also believe in the presumption of guilt, i mean, he must be a murderer, there is no forensic evidence to the contrary. You believe a claim without evidence that you would not do in any other aspect of your life, and then have the bare arsed cheek to call those who don't foolish.
redjove2000 1 month ago
Noah fit seven of every clean animal and two of unclean. and why would sea life need to be on the ark? they live in the sea a flood would not kill them!
purecountry35 1 month ago
I'm Agnostic, meaning I believe that there is no knowledge that God doesnt or does exist. Mostly because of Christian's faulty claims, but here's to Atheists, IF evolution is real (it has a lot of logic, but some is quite faulty) then WHY do the fish, amphibians, and reptiles that evolved from each other still exist? And all creatures all have a similar design (not intelligent design like it says in the bible).
fgt73 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fgt73 We are not talking about one being that became an ape and then a human, we are talking about millions of generations that, adding small changes every generation, creates beings different from their ancestors.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fgt73 Some of those decedents don’t change much and are basic the same species (like nowadays apes), but some of them gather such an amount of change that they are completely different (like humans). So we have an common ancestor, decedent that are basically like them and others that are not, got it? :-)
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
I was thinking, if atheists dont believe there is anything after your life on earth, and that there is no reason for us living or being here at all, then why can atheists be so intent on trying to prove that their theory is the true theory? wouldnt it be logical if they just let everyone mind their own buisness and not intervene in how other people live their lives?
and, by the way, statistics show that countries where there are many religious people, have less crime than "atheist" countries...
daniellanting 1 month ago
@daniellanting Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.
Mrilessthanthreeyou 1 month ago
@Mrilessthanthreeyou But sadly one of the highest suicide rates.
IdontneedanIpod 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daniellanting Please, examples. Also, we (I am not sure if I am an atheist, but…) do it because it is fun and important to improve human condition.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
The only think that makes it suspicous of theres not a god of being gay...
GeneralKryptonite 1 month ago
i like the title "atheism vs christianity" as though your mission is to disprove christianity? ....try and disprove God. You cant. Its impossible and your mind is to weak. And homo sapians are not humans, humans are humans, show me a genetic link between "homosapians" and humans if this video be true.
shootomatic 1 month ago 2
@shootomatic *Homo sapien is the taxonomical name for human you stupid shit. And you can't prove any god either, so that makes your mind weak too, right?
TeamIsOnMyBack 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shootomatic Homo sapiens is the scientific name to humans. It is not necessary to prove that something is not (like “There is no god”), but it is necessary to prove something is (like “God exists”). So, can you prove God?
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Boy is the maker of this video misguided the whole entire way. What bull crap
elibeth121 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Being a christian is the best and it should be the only way to go the rest are bad and christian is the best there is only 1 go,d so aethism is bad and the other religions so go christian.
StaorzX 1 month ago
I'm sorry that this current atheist has some misguided views
GuyWhizdom 1 month ago
Well, somebody has certiainly gotten their mainline talking points in a row, God forbid *pun* somebody does some actual thinking or real analysis of what they think.
SylvanusConant 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're right and I'm wrong, I have nothing to lose, but if I'm right and you're wrong, you have everything to lose.
MrTempest8 2 months ago
the only god is within you. is your hope faith, humour, realise what is going in this our life......rise above the hatred...because that is designed to keep us from evolving....fear...imagine the conditioning thats been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years....just because theres a few that want to control us...think outside...think universe and love...we are here NOW....conquer the idiots who think they can control us
TheKatyc 2 months ago
Comment removed
elibeth121 2 months ago
@PhillipChristoph
Unless that desire for something beyond this world is simply an outgrowth of world-bound curiosity and idealism that has no actual referent... think about how hollow a desire for the 'perfect' food or 'perfect' sex is.
plightweisgoff 2 months ago
In conclusion, I have yet to see why you have these stances on the mentioned topics according to the reasons you have given.
OpsDivine 2 months ago
7. No Christian has ever said they are without sin. Christians commit murder, partake in adultery. Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. Without God, morals are arbitrary. They are defined by society. Something that is accepted in one culture, could be utter taboo in another. With God, there is a basis for morals. 8. How is Evolution progressing? I see no man-apes. I see no transitional forms at all. Is Evolution waiting for the perfect time to sporadically create a transition?
OpsDivine 2 months ago
6. There is a difference between judgement and murder. God commanded Israel to invade Canaan as judgment for their wickedness. They partook in human sacrifice (murder), beastiality, etc. God did not condone murder, he told them to invade Canaan to send judgement. As God did to Israel. The invasion of Israel by Babylon was sent as a judgment by God as well. The only difference was that God actually spoke to the Jews. Continuing arguments are in the next comment.
OpsDivine 2 months ago
5. This argument of "Who created God?" is quite inept. According to philosophy, when defining an explanation as the best explanation, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. This leads to an infinite regress. You would have to give an explanation of the explanation of God, and so on, which would destroy science because you would never have an explanation for anything if this argument were accepted as true. Arguments continue in the next comment.
OpsDivine 2 months ago
3. You are comparing two completely different topics. You are comparing a character in a children's story to an all-powerful being that created our vast universe. It wouldn't be wise to think this way, or you'll be mentioning how transitional forms of creatures are good evidence for Evolution.
4. Noah's Ark can be found on Mt. Ararat.
I will once again continue my arguments in my next comment. :) I would like to remind you that I am simply trying to debate in a friendly way. :)
OpsDivine 2 months ago
1. The difference between the virgin birth of Christ and virgin births is that it actually happened. There is historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth being born by Mary.
2. Homo Sapiens? Really? By geological evidence, we have discovered that bones decay SO much faster than what we thought. If homo sapiens did exist, then they must have lived a few hundred years ago, since the bones would be completely decayed by now in 150,000-200,000 years. I will comment my arguments in the next comment.
OpsDivine 2 months ago
Only one thing to say. Faith is just what it says it is. Faith. My belief is that there is something greater out there, that we didn't evolve from monkeys (although we could've been some simian-looking M-effers at first), but that we were created for a reason and for a purpose. I know that may sound like naive dreaming, but either way, whether there is a god or there isn't a god, we are all human, and regardless of faith or non-faith, we should love each other like I love cake.
SirAlaska 2 months ago
@SirAlaska but... what about pie?!
crazy4lego 2 months ago
@crazy4lego Ha ha. My friend, pie is a whole new ball game. But just for kicks I'll throw pies and cobblers and other assorted pastries in just to make my point.
SirAlaska 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Psalm 14
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.
LASALLIONSTALLION 2 months ago
I agree that there is no God, but this guy only knows how to criticise the fundemantal view of the Bible. Many believe the Bible to be metaphorical,
OFreedomBearO 2 months ago
@OFreedomBearO they belive that know, but back in 1000 a.d i bet they took it to be a true acount of human existance
TheGhilliSniper 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OFreedomBearO There is one true God, Jesus Christ
elibeth121 1 month ago
Eeyup, you can be an Atheist and still have morals. I'm glad someone agrees.
RarityShy 3 months ago
I pray for this lost person and anyone who listens to her. Jesus says seven times in the New Testament “if you have ears to hear”. It makes me sad that so many souls will follow her into the lake of fire. God bless you now.
ColeBFC 3 months ago in playlist More videos from VanCoffeeChick
It is possible to bind a man but not to make captive the Word of God; speech is the condemnation of the wicked, and hence they seek to destroy it; but it is they only who die, and the Word of Truth remains to judge their memory!
Alkhemist10 3 months ago
like it is a world wide accepted thing(COEXISTING). All of it is used to control people don't know what they are talking about. Look at the 2011 bibles they have taken gender out of them, who do they say they are Christians. Christians are Anti Christ and they try to put God in everything for your MONEY(TITHING). Look at t.v. the gospel channel what do they always talk about before and after MONEY(TITHING) what do they say they are Christian. (ANTI-CHRIST)
kalaworld 3 months ago
Gentiles and Israelites. The Gentiles knew that they couldn't prove that Jesus was a fake because he already did works that was talked about through out. So they creating something else, it seemed bigger and better but it wasn't real. Santa is a God which is a fake, created by people who had pushed the name Christians out into the world (anti christ). Christmas/Christians do you see the similarities. So they use this stuff to confuse you and they change words in the bible so that it seems
kalaworld 3 months ago
even if they say they are, those would be false prophets. There is no such thing as a Christian, God never called his people Christians only Disciples of Christ. Christians was in the bible but people forget the meaning and what it meant Christians was a mockery of the Disciples of Christ. Same thing as saying faggot instead of saying gay. Yes there are a lot of people saying that their god was first but that was also talked about in the bible.
kalaworld 3 months ago
All false. Noah didn't take two of every kind. It was two of each unclean and seven of each clean animals(there was certain kinds). Only 16,000 animals was on the boat. Not every man is of his image, everything doesn't have the breath of God. Scientist have been proven wrong countless times. In the bible it did say that there was a time to kill. Yes, there have been fights over religion, but God isn't religious or traditional he is all about relationship. Not everyone is a Disciple of Christ
kalaworld 3 months ago
This is a very interesting and informative video :) Although, the comments are much more entertaining lol. "Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded." And no, I don't care if that offended anyone, as many of you seem easily offended.
mexicangardner101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do you believe God is faulty?
14omoon 3 months ago
Comment on places like this and people pre-judge you. I consider myself agnostic. I think all religious traditions and doctrines are outdated and subsequently vulnerable to shredding. But I don't believe in having a closed tunnel visioned mind, unwilling to consider alternatives. Atheists are as guilty sometimes of that as religious. People need to come out of their burrows and think for themselves , not mimic sheep in following what you've been told and choose to believe because it might be hip
baizecr1 3 months ago
Theres a God. We don't need scientific proof becuzscience cant prove it. God is a whole other entity we cant prove becuz God wuldn't be God anymore if gods existence cud be proven. there's a scientific explanation with "love" & theories with how the world came to be but there's a whole other aspect that comes along with it. Even the devil believes in God. Science has it's limits- science cant prove everything on such deep level becuz humans don't understand HOW God exists. It's all about trust.
MissRUSerious 3 months ago
@MissRUSerious Why wouldn't god be god anymore if his existence could be proven? Oh and you've got it wrong, religion has limits not science. Religion limits you to one answer which you have to believe without any evidence or you are threatened with eternal torment. Science, however tries to find the truth, it certainly doesn't know everything but it has no limits on what it can achieve when it is not being hampered by gullible fairy tale enthusiasts like you. Your trust is misplaced.
redjove2000 3 months ago
@redjove2000 God wouldn't be God if he could be prove--God would just be one of us and not all powerful, faith in God is a grace (gift) from God, only those who accept this is able to understand. so I'm glad you actually question his existence!
MissRUSerious 1 month ago
@MissRUSerious You're an idiot.
redjove2000 1 month ago
@redjove2000 You too my friend! :) Have a good day.
MissRUSerious 1 month ago
@MissRUSerious "God wouldn't be God if he could be prove--God would just be one of us and not all powerful"
Are you a Poe? Nobody can be that stupid.
moopism 3 weeks ago
the devil wanted it his way, so he needs to go to burger king(they do it your way). but that burger becomes a turd that gets flushed. Jesus said He is the only way because He is the only God and with Him we live forever. So the devil feeds us lies everyday instead of the truth(Jesus) so that he(the devil) can live longer because he knows it has been written in the bible(KJV) that he will be flushed like the turd he is.
Mr111mac111 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Loudale There is most certainly a God. The creator of this world that we live on and creator of everything in and around it. Something cannot bring itself into existence... therefore "stuff" has to have a cause.
endlich93 4 months ago
@Loudale There is most certainly a God. The creator of this world that we live on and creator of everything in and around it. Something cannot bring itself into existence... therefore "stuff" has to have a cause.
endlich93 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@endlich93 Just because we don't have answer doesn't mean we should make one up..
noahre1 3 months ago
@endlich93 Let's take natural phenomenas for example, people in ancient times can't explain them so there must be a "god" behind it. Plain and simple as the good old religion.
divinegod102 3 months ago
@endlich93 There is most certainly NOT a God and as a scientific question, there is absolutely no evidence supporting 'his' existence.
monkeysthatkill 3 months ago
@endlich93 And what caused God? Super-God? Logic fail.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 not really. god can indeed be uncaused if it is something that has always existed. this indeed is possible. do we ever think about what caused space? it is possible for space to have always existed, just as it is possible for something like god to have always existed. clearly you are unread in philosophy. maybe you should read up on the subject before making yourself look retarded.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Clever. Make a teleological case for primal cause, and then stop when you've reached the point where you can call it God. I'm quite well read in philosophy, but I believe you meant theology, a particularly vacuous genre of it. I don't need to waste my time with a 'subject' which assumes it's premise without foundation and then works circularly to justify it. You might want to think twice before you speak lest you make yourself look retarded.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 again, god can be shown to be consistent with the state of things as they are today (go read, as you claim to have read, but clearly haven't because if you did you would understand the arguments written by van inwagen or other philosophers on the subject). as van inwagen states, the argument has come down to a prima facie argument (if you don't know what that is, you haven't read philosophy as you claim to have done) about which is more likely assuming the state of things.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Wow, what a backpedal. Not deterred by finding out I have a degree in the very subject he brought up fruitlessly and unmeritoriously, he falls back to pseudophilosophy. You can make God fit with any view of reality you want, because you are constructing God post-hoc. Van Imwagen is just another of your favorite sophists, he still fails to establish his premise properly. Regardless, he poses more problems for Christians than he makes their case. Also, he grossly simplifies reality to
ianman6 3 months ago
...make it congruent with a God. His God is nothing more than a God of the gaps, but worse, his gaps only exist in his paulty simplification of reality. And finally, who said anything about proving? After all this, you still didn't understand my first correction of your error? Atheism is the lack of belief, not necessarily the assertion that there is no, god or gods. Of course you cannot 'disprove' the existence of God, but you can prove it. Yet the religious have been entirely unable to do so.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 neither can be PROVEN to be wrong, as an explanation can be given to support each. go read then respond plz.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@ianman6 and as for for the "working circularly to justify it," you should be careful about stating things that sound nice but are absolutely false. under the premise of god the state of things in our world today can be justified (hence God can be shown to be consistent, as the premise of God cannot be disproved.). if you have a proof that God does not exist i would love to hear it (of course you don't have one. I'm just humoring myself.).
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Incredible. You challenge my assertion that theology engages in purely circular justification for the existence of God by demonstrating exactly that and proving my point? Ouch. "if you have a proof that God does not exist " I don't. Do I need it? Why would I need to disprove something that hasn't been supported by evidence? The burden of proof is on the positive claiment, in this case yourself. The real 'state of things' is more consistent with the lack of a Christian god.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 lol so i would then question what is your justification on how the earth came to be and all this. if the big bang theory, then my original statement applies. if not the big bang theory then what? maybe you agree with (forgot who the author was of this paper) that the entire universe is a big organism that self generates? i really don't see how you can assert that there is more evidence in favor of there being no god. in fact i would argue there is less evidence for atheism.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler So you were only pretending to be well read in philosophy then. Because basic logic, which I must apparently repeat here, requires that the one making the positive claim provide evidence. The negative position on a claim requires no evidence. You cannot presume there is a God just because your poor understanding of the development of the universe coupled with intellectual laziness affords you the space to just say 'God did it', and then expect someone else to disprove it.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 lol i appreciate how you so slyly dodged my question. even in assuming atheism, this requires certain positive assertions, which require you (as you have so nicely stated previously) require positive proof. you have yet to answer how you believe, then, the earth's existence came to be and how this solar system and everything came to be. my guess is that your explanation is poor and that you really believe, "that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing...."
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Again, I will repeat my clarification of the definition of atheism. It is the lack of belief (a negative, not positive position) in a god or gods. There are not positive assertions involved by necessity, only by extension (even then, only likely and not necessarily). So I do not need any evidence to reject a claim for which you provide no evidence all, let alone any compelling evidence. As for your 'question', it is nothing but a Gish gallup. It is so unwieldy as to be unanswerable.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 again noob, the lack of belief in god or gods comes along with positive assertions whether you like it or not. you can say it doesn't over and over and over and over again, but you're choosing to ignore barriers that are actually there. NOT BELIEVING IN GOD STILL REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION FOR HOW THE EARTH IS. you can't ignore these assertions as much as i know you really really really really really really want to so as to make it easy for you to defend your "atheism."
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Still toiling in failure. 'God' is not an explanation of any kind, whatsoever. It describes no process, no mechanism. And you conveniently ignore the brief explanation for the formation of the Earth, which is more than enough to point you in the direction for further inquiry if it weren't for the fact that you are completely lazy and intellectually dishonest. Planet formation is a well understood process, and there is no God involved. You ignore evidence and supplant it with a...
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 as for my question being "unwieldy." i can answer it from the basis of the premise of god. can you not give a reasonable explanation under the premise of no god? i thought so.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler non-explanation. 'God did it with his powers and it can't be explained by science'. Well news flash, it has been explained by science and god had nothing to do with it. For the last time, it is only your own personal lack of knowledge that leaves room for god. My lack of belief does not, by any stretch of the imagination, require any positive claims, no matter how you try to twist it. Aren't you tired of failing miserably? Doesn't it leave a bitter taste in your mouth after a while?
ianman6 3 months ago
The 'barriers' you speak of are imaginary, and only to you. Scientists encounter no such barriers as the ones you posit. It's like you are deliberately ignoring, astrophysics, physics, geology, and even philosophy (which despite your claim to the contrary, you clearly have not even the slightest grasp of). You have the audacity to think your position defensible since I do not make efforts to fix your ignorance? It is your responsibility to educate yourself. Your stupidity, your problem. Not mine
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I need not 'slyly dodge' it. You asked me to explain the entire origin and development of the universe, a question which entire fields of physics and cosmology are dedicated to. Basically you are too lazy to do your own homework and can only resort to semantic games to 'win' an argument. The formation of the universe is explained by the big bang, which does NOT state that 'something' came from 'nothing'. That is in fact a Creationist theory. Your failure to recognize this basic fact
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler ...betrays your extremely poor knowledge of the subjects you attempt to dispute. The Earth was formed as any planet was, through the gradual contraction of an accretion disc due to gravity over time. The accretion disc arose as a byproduct of star formation (our Sun), which is also explained in detail (and with overwhelming supporting evidence) by astrophysics. Etcetera, etcetera. There is no need, at any point, to unnecessarily postulate a god. Only your personal ignorance provides
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler the space to do so. The only place left for your God is before the Big Bang, to which 'he' has had to retreat, and still you cannot provide any justification for why we should presume he is to be found there. the 'God' theory explains nothing at all with any predictive power. Science does exactly that. And not only do you try to fit God into genuine gaps in scientific knowledge, you put him in gaps in your own, which do not correlate to real gaps. Atheism is the default position on..
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler on the existence of God. To assume otherwise would require evidence, not vice-versa. If I said I have an invisible dragon in my pocket, it is not incumbent upon you to prove otherwise, for I have provided no reason or evidence for its existence. Yet you try, incorrectly, to put a negative postulate on the same ontological plain as a positive one. You have yet to provide any compelling evidence for a god and your only recourse is to challenge me to provide evidence against. Fail.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 and as for you argument about positive assertions using your "invisible dragon analogy," you again misstate the truth. let's say we were trying to figure out what's behind a locked, unopenable door. i hypothesize there are clothes behind, but you hypothesize there is nothing. both assertions, in fact, do lie on the same "ontological plain" as you wish to call it. hypothesizing there is nothing behind it is as much a positive assertion as the fact there are clothes behind it.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Your analogy is the misrepresentation here, not mine. And it is dishonest at that. The assertion that a God exists where there is no evidence for it is akin to saying that behind your supposed closed door is an equally supernatural being. My position is akin to saying 'I don' believe you', not that there is nothing. You have continued to misrepresent atheism with a strawman and steadfastly refused to adopt my simple correction. You are therefore engaging in wilful dishonesty.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 you again oversimplify the argument, convincing yourself you've got it all figured out when you, in fact, don't at all. again, my reply, is YOU FAIL.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I never claimed to have 'all figured out'. What is all? What are you even talking about? You are the one who brought in a demand for the explanation of 'everything', the inability to satisfy your dishonest demand in a YouTube commentary taken as support for your assertion that 'God' (without further elucidation) is the explanation, is justified. When I correctly and with the overwhelming weight of evidence on my side answer some of your questions, you accuse me of having answer for..
ianman6 3 months ago
...everything? Your arguments, if I grant them the honour of being called as such, are nothing but cheap word games and anyone reading sees it. You are the simplifier here. You ask an oversimplistic question (explain how the universe and Earth 'got here') and provide a simplistic answer ('God did it') with no attendant description of how. I break down your question into manageable bits, and you demand I answer 'all or nothing' lest you maintain a fictitious space for your God postulate. Finally,
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler ...when I do no such thing, you cry foul in frustration at your own inadequacy and claim 'I have an asnwer for everything'? You are the one with the answer for everything. The answer is God, and it is a cop-out answer without explanatory power. Further, it still fails to account for the complex and undirected processes which underlie the answers to the questions you ask. You are not only lying to me, you are lying to yourself.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 this video summarizes just part of the highly scientific arguments against some of the things which atheists would need to claim. i could write them all out, but will defer you to this video for just a piece of what's out there. /watch?v=D_I2xyoY3uc
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Satan invented evolution. Which part is the 'highly scientific' part? 'Highly' is not an appropriate adverb to qualify the adjective 'scientific'. Something is either scientific or it isn't. The video you linked to, sadly, isn't. In fact, it's not even the best case creationists or Christians have for their beliefs. It's quite awful. VenomFangX is a known delusional moron with severe psychological issues, and is demonstrably unable to grasp scientific reasoning. You'll have to do...
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 wow you watched a 10 minute video in 2 minutes. hmmmmm. you can ignore the arguments if you wish but will continue in your ignorance. do you want me to re-state the scientific things he stated from a different source? i could but the point is that the arguments are valid, yet you wish to ignore them.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I have seen the video before, several times. Like I said, nothing new. It's like you are stuck in a time machine. The arguments are not valid, nor are they scientific. He is not a scientist, does not quote scientists, does not source any science at all in fact. There is no science present in the entire video. The arguments are not ignored, they are already dismantled. But you would know this if you had bothered to actually do research instead of unquestioningly accepting.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler better than this, but since this latest 'argument' of yours characterizes the overall thrust of your case, I think it's safe to say this is the best you have. In which case, you have no case at all. Look, putting aside our debate here for a second, you genuinely have no honest or reasonable case without using deception (mostly to yourself) or ignorance (of basic scientific knowledge). You owe it to yourself to do some genuine, honest engagement with the truth. I have not seen a new
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler argument for your case in a long time, and I have been searching. The case is dead, and you lost it. Give up. It is truly a waste of time, energy and breath to uphold a non-existent position that has been demonstrably dismantled and is divorced from reality, let alone modern scientific knowledge. The only arguments you have presented are old, worn and debunked (some for decades), yet you persist. If atheists are correct, at least you have nothing to lose, right?
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 well you can continue to believe all these arguments are "debunked" when in fact all of them haven't and many are weakly refuted at best. and this is in fact only a beginning to arguments against atheism. i could go on and on but you will continue to ignorantly claim they've all been "debunked." you can continue to be atheist, but will only do so to your own demise.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler They have indeed been debunked, and demonstrably so. You only choose to ignore the unassailable logic which refutes tired creationist canards because you have an ideology to protect, at the expense of honesty and integrity. Again, the only way to be a creationist is to be a liar, a self-deceiver, a fool, or a combination thereof. I will play one last game with you, and then I am going to bed. It is past midnight here. The game is you pick any argument in the video, and I dismantle it
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 just humoring you for the present, 2 arguments that would be interesting to hear you "easily dismantle" are 1. violations of evolution to the second law of entropy and 2. irreducably complex parts of organisms (eyes, flagellum in single-cell organisms, etc.) also including the formation of 1 million combinations of pairs of dna into the most basic form of life.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I suppose I was fooling myself in expecting better. Let's see if you'll be honest enough to cede to the evidence. #1. Evolution in no way, shape, or form, at any time, violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that closed systems will tend to decay toward chaos over time. Evolution does not exist in a closed system. You are misapplying the second law, which is not your fault since you are parroting creationist lies. But I'm sure you will deny or ignore this and move on
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 wow that was the weakest response i could have possibly imagined. lol this is really hilarious. you have again convinced yourself of something which you have no idea. it's pretty obvious to me you've never taken a physics class. lol wow man. that really was pathetic. you really need to do better than that. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler You have not met my answers honestly. You asked, I provided the genuine scientific answer, and you simply dismissed and patted yourself on the back. Congratulations, you've continued to deceive yourself. Will you do so your whole life or will you grow a streak of honesty? I think the former is more likely. As for your strange reversal, you finally admit the case against God is consistent and that your objections might be invalid (they are, as I have demonstrated)...
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler as though nothing happened. #2 No biologist without a dogma to uphold accepts the concept of irreducible complexity. You would have to ignore the hundreds of light-sensing organs and organelles which are precursors to the eye, and which demonstrate every component thereof in increasing complexity, to claim the eye is irreducibly complex. Likewise for the flagellum, which has been shown to act as an injection mechanism when you remove many of it's parts. Again, deception is necessary
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 well if i would have known you were going to wave your hands over every argument i present, i could have convinced myself that they were false arguments better than you. sounds like you need to do a little more research as i am not impressed nor even slightly convinced. in going from no light sensing to light sensing and from light sensing to eyes requires irreducible complexity. you simply wave your hands over this and asuume it's no problem. all i can say is fail.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler How is providing the gist of the scientific answers to your questions 'hand waving'? You want me to do all of your homework for you before you start thinking? Like spoon feeding a baby who keeps spitting food out. You want more details go the relevant scientific literature. I am not your tutor, I've done more than my share and more than you deserve, frankly. I've done the scientific case justice but you want me to present the entirety of the scientific body of knowledge to you, here?
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 i guess arguing these objections wasn't a good idea over youtube. was already aware of the answers you gave and was, i guess, hoping for more. i have read about the flagellum argument and the debate does not seem to have been settled.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler The flagellum debate is settled for everyone except Behe and his tiny cohort of dogmatic supporters. He claimed the flagellum was irreducibly complex, a simple positive statement that can be proven true or false. In fact, it was a scientific argument! So I'll give it that. But the proof is in the pudding. If true, then it could not be shown that the parts of the flagellum had any function without the other parts. If false, the opposite could be shown. And it was. That case is closed.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Even Behe has abandoned the flagellum argument. He still argues for irreducible complexity, but is struggling like an amputee in quicksand to find an example to use. So until he does, his theory is flat. We have not found a single biological system for which there are no simpler, componental precursors. Period.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler This is why you are still holding on to a dead case. You refuse to follow the rules of logic and evidence you apparently tout. If you had a shred of honesty you would not have presented such a poor case that has been dissected for years, nor arguments which are answered in high school biology. Why do you keep lying? You are the one hand waving. Notice how I have answered every single one of your objections, and you simply moved on as though I didn't. You are the only one guilty of...
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 By the way, game over and you lost. If you want to play again, you will need to find arguments which are tenable. I suggest you put down you 'How to Defend Christianity with Lies and Ignorance' pamphlet and go read. In fact, there are much better cases for your position, I'm surprised you haven't presented them. They are by no means very good, but much better than the simple dishonest drivel you peddled here.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 there are more, which is what i stated from the beginning. the video was only a bit of what's out there. as for you winning, that is open to debate, as i would say i have won.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I know there is more out there. I have probably read more of it than you have. I could have put your case better than you have, in fact, and still I would have dismantled it. And of course you would say you won, you can't lose in your mind. God is on your side. You don't need silly things like 'evidence' and 'reason' if you have faith. In fact, I don't know why you bother to try your case, just say you have faith and you don't even need a debate. You've won, permanently.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Before I leave, I'll point out your most glaring dishonesty and your typical avoiding of the issue once you've been presented with a stronger case than yours, or an answer for which you have no retort. You brought up the issue of anthropology of religion (for some odd reason, since it had nothing to do with proving the existence of god) and by chance (since you couldn't have known) I have a graduate degree in the field. Upon learning this and being corrected on the lie you declared..
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler , instead of being honest and conceding that you in fact were totally unqualified to speak on the matter, attempted to debase my degree (which was, you should know, difficult to earn) or dismiss it and then avoid the territory since you were now aware I would call you on your bullshit in it. This trend of yours continued throughout the debate, and was a red flag from the beginning. I noted it and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but true to your type you persisted in shady tactics.
ianman6 3 months ago
your accusations.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I have already exposed your piss-poor grasp on logic (your self-proclaimed strength was philosophy, right?) and your complete lack of awareness of the science you claim to argue against (you don't even understand the big bang except for some apologetics website strawman version of it.) So in essence, you have already been playing and losing this game since or conversation began, but I'm generous and you get another free try. Go ahead.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 lol you would love to think that you have exposed something, but it's not my logic, it's your stupidity. i have been winning this argument since the beginning yet of course i can tell you love to feed yourself fake messages that you are in fact "winning." you're not winning any more than charlie sheen. go continue to fail at life.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler to uphold the irreducible complexity argument, which is universally denounced by evidence. Finally, #3 we have a clear map of molecular replication that leads from simple to complex molecules bonding and forming self-replicating yet pre-biotic molecules, providing a clear basis to form biotic life. The lie you repeat in this case is that we must somehow start at 1 million and explain that in one leap, ignoring the staggering series of increasingly complex examples before it.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler however, in hearing your arguments against the objections i left, even if the objections i raised were invalid, all it does is show CONSISTENCY, NOT PROOF, of the lack of the existence of God. I would respond with the same challenge to you. ask me some way in which the premise of there being a God is inconsistent with the state of affairs in the life in which we live. i could just as well respond as you could with the objections i raise to you.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler yet in an astonishing feet of empty verbosity, you take that to provide strength for your case? Wow. I have already accepted your claim that a God can be shown to be consistent with the 'state of affairs' (whatever you mean by that) if you twist the concept of God to fit in the gaps. But the case without God remains supported by evidence while yours is not. i am bending over to give you more of a chance and you still fail. You choose between 2 answers the one without evidence.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 clearly your so called "M.A." hasn't taught you much about philosophy. your M.A. doesn't mean squat.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler My M.A. is in anthropology, not philosophy. It is a degree that requires evidence, not mental masturbation and intellectual acrobatics. Philosophy is useless if divorced from facts. All you're doing is playing semantic word games and constructing you're own reality, which is what all religions do across culture (which you would know if you read any anthropology of religion). And it is a real M.A., not a 'so-called' one. Where's yours? Nowhere? B.A. in theology from low tier college?
ianman6 3 months ago
@endlich93 How are you certain? And sure, I know that something cannot bring itself into existence magically. Rather than branding it as a gods doing though, i'd rather really find the cause, it's much more impressive, complex, and real.
TheLoudale 1 month ago
I believe there isn't a god of any sorts. There is the eath we live on, and the universe that surrounds it. You just got to look around and SEE that. everything is of its own majesty and to pollute your mind, that you've gained through years of evolution, of adaptation and understanding, genetic changes that aren't science but natural, and to be taught to believe and fear some man made diety is ignorant to me. not to offend anyone. I will live and die and be at peace like milions before me.
TheLoudale 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLoudale Atheism:
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, then everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler That is not the definition of atheism if that is what you were going for.
TheLoudale 3 months ago
@TheLoudale i think it pretty accurately describes atheism.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Sorry, but that is ignorant. Stop discriminating against atheist and try to actually learn what it is before saying bullshit. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god/gods. You're trying to say they believe in an awful summary of the big bang theory and how life started on earth. which is something completely different. Atheism is JUST the lack of belief in god(s) whether they believe the big bang theory is another story. so your definiton of atheism is bullshit.
TheLoudale 3 months ago
@TheLoudale don't patronize me you retard. of course i'm well aware of what you say even before you i posted my original comment. but my question to you is, if you don't accept the big bang theory, how do you account for the earth's existence? hmm there's a question for you that i doubt you have a good answer to. If this is the case, maybe you should question your atheism.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Retard? how offensive. I never said i didn't accept the big bang theory, i was clarifying that atheism is describing someone that lacks belief in god(s) The big bang theory is a theory and does not define what an atheist is so should not be used to define atheism. And your summary of the big bang theory was hardly up to par with what it really is. Therefore your comment you previously posted is basically bullshit.
TheLoudale 3 months ago
@TheLoudale again, re-read my comment and rethink yours.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler I have no reason to honestly. I posted a comment. You responded with a clearly rude comment about what you think about atheism. I call it bullshit. You call me retarded. I clarified. I'm done with this conversation. Have fun with your life.
TheLoudale 3 months ago
@TheLoudale well if you're done with conversation then i get the last word. atheism is a bunch of garbage that people choose to believe because they have a crappy life. last word.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@TheLoudale Quite the piece of work this rmsprowler is, huh? I'm still not entirely convinced he isn't a troll, but I continue as though he isn't for the benefit of any intelligent readers who maybe genuinely wrestling certain questions with honesty and integrity (unlike the aforementioned prowler). If he continues to lie and play games I may cease and desist, but we'll see if he can at least take a step toward intellectual rigour and account for his failings.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 I doubt that. For some reason most people with such bedridden beliefs blindly and sometimes violently defend their beliefs, no matter how unstable the foundation their beliefs are laid upon. Goodluck though :) i hope you make more progress than i have.
TheLoudale 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Nice, you invent a completely false (and ridiculous) definition of atheism and then sarcastically dismiss it. That is textbook strawman, complete fail. What you've actually done is construct a definition composed entirely of your ignorance and called it 'atheism'. Let me correct you: atheism - the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. There. Just because you are personally ignorant of the reasons above, doesn't mean you can claim 'for no reason' and then say 'ergo, God'.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 so you do believe in the big bang theory. then you can't dismiss my deduction.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Is accept the Big Bang theory because it is supported by staggering and overwhelming evidence. However, Big Bang theory does not equal atheism. Your definition was still incorrect. I could be an atheist and not believe what you said in your post. I could simply claim not to know. Luckily, we do know. But even then, your definition was not of the Big Bang. Again, you are just repeating strawmen constructed by your favorite apologetics website.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 seriously though, if you read any anthropology of religion (if you know what that is) you cannot disprove nor prove the existence of god. God can be shown to be consistent with our world. i suggest you read up on some of that before seriously going with atheism.
rmsprowler 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Hahaha megafail! I have an M.A. in anthropology with specialisation in comparative religion. You don't want to go there buddy. If you think the anthropology of religion has anything to do with proving or disproving God, you clearly haven't read a single, tiny bit of it.
ianman6 3 months ago
@rmsprowler Oh I get it, you're a troll. I looked at your channel and then facepalmed. Sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. I'll stop playing 'feed the troll' now.
ianman6 3 months ago