most christians today are converted for the fear of hell not out of love.& when they think they are in the clear (of hell) they like to go around telling people their going to hell.like their on some power trip..thinking that god pats them on the head every time they terrorize people with hell.people don't understand that gods love is punishment & the fact is your conscience comes alive & you are brain washed to think that an invisible eye is always watching everything you do..illness=religion
@zpgJiggleBilly They were not written by eye witnesses because they were made up fairy stories usually variations of other previous stories. So there was nothing to witness. They were written to persuade the credulous to give money and to help the powerful get or retain power. Jesus never existed. It is a myth. As for dying for a cause people do that all the time. It is not unique amongst humans. Much of the myth books were written decades after the alleged events happened.
Funny, if you really think about it, this whole blog is nothing but trolls. atheism, its a joke really, when you think about it. The whole position is based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. Its 100% intellectually indefensible. You don't think blogs like this are considered trolling? lol
@miket1m Think about this, it is possible to believe in god and still be an atheist...... give up? If you believe in say, Zeus, then to Christians you are in fact an atheist becuase you deny their god.
@zpgJiggleBilly I don't believe in Zeus, neither does anyone else. We all know that it was made up by the Greeks as in Greek Mythology. The gospels were written by eye witnesses. Why would they lie? Why would they lie about the resurrection and then preach about honesty, truth, etc., and then die for that cause?
@miket1m A guy can get high and say he sees things that aren't there, an phsycologically insane person hears things that aren't there, does that make it true? No, but you can't deny sincerity, maybe the gospels were sincere, but they can be deluded, just like so many others in the world. I like the quote (Though I can't remember who said it) "Religion started when the first con man, met the first fool"
@IslamicFarming Do you plant 'pedo seeds' on your Islamofarm?
Do the girl workers get a good sound thrashing and then some righteous rape is they flash an ankle by accident whilst working or their eye slit slips and a bloke gets a glimpse of nose which then has to be cut off?
Do you use good islamic granite for stoning or import poofy foreign limestones which hardly gash those wanton harlots heads open?
Mathematics don't have anything to do with abiogenesis, in case you mean physics I'd also not agree. Before life on earth, there were simple chemicals (like on all other planets), and nobody has any idea about what happened before - any idea supported by evidence that is.
I can't imagine the incredible distance from here to the next Solar System (proxima centauri, about 4 Light Years = 4,200,000,000,000 Kilometres = 60,000 years traveling time for the fastest probes), let alone the furthest in our galaxy (95,000 Light Years), let alone ones in other galaxies, but that doesn't mean all math calculating this distance should be rendered invalid because it's so hard to imagine.
The complexity is too vast for you to imagine? I can't imagine it either, but that doesn't make evolution untrue. After all, the complex stuff had vast amounts of time (about 3,500,000,000 years) to evolve.
@ac1th Yes it does. Evolution is one of the biggest scams of the 20th century. It goes right along with, who's that old guy and that fake global warming theory? lol
@jinnwarior Why, I'm not a troll at all Mr Ass Clown. By the looks of your profile pic I would say you are a troll wannabe. But for now, you're just an Ass Clown. Good Night Ass Clown. lol
If micro occurs, macro occurs after a longer period of time. In essence, they are the same thing. Microevolution is observable and does occur, that's true. But then logically, macroevolution also must be true.
Now, Macroevolution is of course not just derived from Microevolution. Fossiles show that it happens.
Nick Gisburne is not love, Nick Gisburne is illogical.
For one to say there is no God, necessitates that one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience). For one to say there is no sufficient evidence to support the existence of God necessitates that one would have to have seen all the evidence in the world. Atheist attacks on theology is a feeble attempt to make their position appear to be somewhat intellectually viable. It is not.
Have you seen ANY evidence pointing to the christian god being real? AND the only true god? The only reasons leading theists to believe is fear of hell and indoctrination.
Which is more likely, some charismatic schizophrenic fraud showing up one day proclaiming he had spoken to the living god or some supernatural deity actually choosing a bunch of people in some desert to praise him and giving them some set of arbitrary rules among obvious moral standards?
@ac1th Yes I have seen evidence that supports the existence of God. The Laws of Logic for one. There is quite a bit of evidence that supports the existence of God.
In order to say there is no God, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience). For one to say there is no sufficient evidence to support the existence of God, necessitates that one would have to have seen all the world. Atheism is illogical and 100% intellectually indefensible.
@ac1th I can't tell you one thing that proves the Christian God? Why is that, is it because you just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists? Like I said earlier, I do have proof. For one, the Atheist's inability to account for the existence of the Laws of Logic. Can you, as an Atheist account for their existence? I doubt it, but give it your best shot.
@miket1m Wait, you do have proof that God exist? What is that proof? Don't just go on, that's something interesting.
And yeah, I can account for the existence of the laws of logic. At least, they are infinitely more probable than a complex intelligence preceding the universe as we know it. Also, since you are using logic in discussion and since, as I assume, you are using logic to show that god exists, you also have to account for the laws.
@ac1th Of course, First I want to verify what Laws I am speaking of:
1. The Law of Identity - Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. The Law of non Contradiction - Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle - a statement is either true or false. Therfore, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.
@ac1th Also: These Laws are absolute truth statements and form the basis of rational discourse. They are transcendent. They are not dependent on the material world. They are are conceptual by nature.
Now, you first, how do you, as an atheist account for their existence?
@miket1m Where they actually come from isn't important to me, they apparently work. What I'd like to know is how me not being able to prove where logic came from has to do with the christian god being the only true god.
I could make up any story how they came to be and it would be equally believable to the god theory.
@ac1th You saying they're existence isn't important to you is weak intellectual reasoning and doesn't account for their existence.
The atheists inability to account account for the existence of the Laws of Logic has everything to do with proving the existence of God. The laws of logic were not created by God or man, so how do you account for their existence? Think hard, you can't account for the Logical Absolutes. No Atheist can. Christians can.
@miket1m Right, it's not intellectual reason at all, I just don't see why I should bluntly assert JHWH to be true and worship him even though there is an infinite amount of explanations for how the universe could have come to exist.
Any religion is intellectually bankrupt, because you have to assert the existence of your god before you can even start to argue. Since this position is not backed up by proof, everything built on it is invalid.
@ac1th "How the universe COULD have come to exist..." Right, the old quaint evolution theory. Well actually, its not even a theory, its just an absurd idea.
I thought we were debating the existence of God and not theology. You can debunk theology all day long, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God. There is proof for God and I just showed you two proofs. I am simply pointing out how illogical the Atheist position is. Really, how do you validate your position.
@ac1th The Atheist fails to account for the existence of the Laws of Logic because they do not have a God in their lives. They are a reflection of His character:L
1. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
2. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
3. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
4. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
Man being made in the image of God is able to discover them
Fuck you. Why do you fucking christians have to come and condemn us? You know nothing of Christianity, for if you see an atheist like this, you should pray for him, not quietly revel in his eternal damnation you sick fucking bastard. If hell exists, you and your brethren will be the first to rot away into endless anguish, a forgiving punishment at that for the hell you keep causing.
@ImTheKobold YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!! That scares the shit out of you doesn't it? Be careful, don't be too disrespectful to God for too long. That type of sin is definitely unforgivable.
A lot of the time when I mention christianity and religion in the same sentence, christians correct me that "It's not a religion, it's a relationship with Jesus/God." The ol' "Love me or burn in Hell" is a pretty tough premise for a religion, let alone relationship. I can't understand why or how people could see it as a good deal, or how they could feel love for such a being who would do that simply because they were told to. Good video, articulates some confusions I've had for a while.
@miket1m I can't tell which side of the debate you represent, but offering nothing to the argument in favour of insulting someone's intelligence because they expressed a lack of understanding on what is, to put it mildly, an incredibly open-to-interpretation subject, is not a positive reflection of your own intelligence. But perhaps you're right, I am a fool to expect anything else from youtube.
I simply state that is illogical for one to take such a strong position based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. Atheism fails to account for the Laws of Logic, Rationality, Morals, etc.. Atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.
@miket1m Since when is not knowing something for sure "such a strong position"? You seem a lot more certain that anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a moron than I am about just about anything I can think of :p
@Shindai You defend your position don't you? I see the majority of atheists attempt to articulate their atheism in a strategic way as to make it unassailable. Every atheist I've ever encountered expends energy trying to refute theistic arguments and defending atheism. Prayer out of schools, All sorts of legal battles. I would say they take it seriously and take a strong position, yes.
@miket1m _Mandatory_ prayer was removed from schools. Nobody can stop you from praying if you want to.
Yeah, he defends his position. Strange. He should just give in and become religious like every rational person. Like you!
You didn't get what I wrote. I wasn't suggesting that the universe could have popped into existence, I was merely pointing out that you can't know what actually happened. There are tons of explanations that would be supported by some kind of evidence.
@ac1th You're not dealing with your everyday Theist here. As for evolution I think evolution is a great deception. It goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you have studied it thoroughly, then undoubtedly, you should have encountered evidence contrary to your belief. So then, is evolution an absolute fact? If you are talking genetic change over time, are you referring to micro or macro?
@miket1m Micro- and macroevolution both mean genetic change over time. As a matter of fact, no I have not researched it thoroughly. Then again, it's scientific consensus all over the world, and every try to refute it has either been on shaky ground to begin with or was clearly disproven (look up your thermodynamics claim on talkorigins org).
Evolution is a scientific fact. I wouldn't say it's absolute though because minor pieces of data get changed or added sometimes.
If you have not researched it then how do you know it is scientific fact? I would say that you are going by what you hear and you have no clue about Evolution. If this is not true then tell me why you think is is not a bunch of crap and it is fact.
@miket1m Now that was a predictable reply. I already wrote why I think it's not a bunch of crap. By the way, you forgot to tell me what your proof of god was. "Your theory is shit" doesn't count.
@ac1th No, my reply is not crap. You tell me how you as an Atheist accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic. You can't. So far, I am certainly not impressed with your argument. Please tell me again why you think evolution is an absolute fact. Especially since you have never studied it. Do you have a degree, if so in what?
@ac1th Evolution is not even science. Science means "to study." How can you study something that doesn't exist? How can you call evolution science if it can't be studied?
Micro - change in allele frequency. Macro - one species to another: Radical DNA restructuring. Micro occurs. But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast.
@ac1th Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically. I just can't buy the change of DNA info on such levels its too complex. Do you agree that abiogenesis is impossible mathematically?
@miket1m Your appeal to incredulity based on your own ignorance couldn't un interest me more, lucky ya got these words. Anyway, which brand of skyddady do you circumnavigate the intellect with?
@Rockster969 Perhaps we should get your intellect it's own chair, I think we have some doll house furniture around here somewhere. If your ego were any larger, NASA would be sending a probe to investigate it. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is an egotistical maniac with a low self esteem cause by his poor relationship with his father. Aahh how did he know that? You are obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool. "Smell me" You need an old fashion kick in your rude ass, old boy!
@Rockster969 Stop functioning from your limbic system. If your I.Q. reaches room temperature, sell! Personally, I refuse to debate with anything that is more than 75% water.
Exactly...you can't have a constuctive debate with theists, especially Jesus freaks...because they assume god is real. they can't do a hypothetical:) we have to make them realize how stupid they are by saying...i believe in santa claus! How do you know i'm wrong!??? LOL
Ok...God did not lie...originally we, humans, were not suppose to die...when you said you will die he was right they did die. just like if i said if you smoke you will get cancer, the first cigarette you smoke doesnt lead to haveing to go to chemo the next day.
Smoking doesn't always cause cancer. Damn you need work on your analogies. They are strained at best. Fine then, if you'd like to think it was meant that way. Still why did god want humans to remain ignorant? They say ignorance is bliss but I'd rather gain knowledge and be misserable than be a satisfied fool. The whole story is very reminiscent of Prometheus.
ya well if God, instead of me had said it, it would always cause cancer. understand the idea before you critisize an analogy. The knowledge was about evil...you dont need evil to live a happy or knowledgeable life. I mean of all the knowledge in the universe each of us dont know much...and life can still be misserable if youlike.
I would say you do need evil in order to be happy. If there was no evil or badness how would you know what happy or good were? What yardstick for comparison would you have to evaluate your state of well being. And no, your analogies just suck. Don't try to accuse me of ignorance to get around your bullshit analogies.
For example, you say that you would always get cancer if god said it. But in your comment you clearly say "if i said if you smoke you will get cancer." Clearly you are indicating that it is YOU saying it not god. Maybe you should read your own comments before accusing me of ignorance.
All I'm saying is would life be interesting if everyone was constantly happy? That's why I don't get heaven. Why would constant bliss be satisfying? What makes life interesting is the trials and tribulations, the struggles and overcoming things. And dude, your analogies do suck. I pointed out exactly what was wrong with your last one and that was the best comeback you could make. Pffft.
First is was making a distinction between if i say some thing and if God says something...if i said it will rain frogs tomorrow, odds are it wont...if God says it...it will.
Right, this discussion won't work. You pressupose god, I can't do that. If I were to say that it won't rain frogs because mythical characters can't talk, then you'll just say something like it will because god isn't mythical.
this line of philosophical discussion already has God existing as a pretense...if you wanted to talk about a different philosophical debate because you cant grasp this one then just do..we could talk about a presupposition of no god or an evil god or what ever...but this discussion was about following the Christian God and how we know him not how others try to make him
Well nice talking to you Twackius...but i got to start my semester end run for finals and youtube takes up way too much time...check you out in january...keep searching for what is good and God Bless.
His comments remind me of my 4 year old daughter...i tell her don't put your hand on the red hot stove or you will be burned and be in pain...and she gets mad at me like im trying to punish her...when all im doing is telling her what the conseqences are...God Bless.
Why should there be consequences for not returning affection to an admirer? Besides, telling someone the consequences might produce obedience akin to that of a scared slave but it doesn't produce faith or love. The most threats can do is induce someone to act like they have faith or love to avoid the punishment. I think the Christian god, were he real, would appreciate loving service not frightened groveling.
amazingly only people who dont like Christians think that obedience stems from fear, where most Christians believe it stems from love. So just because you would do something out of fear doesnt mean we do...God Bless.
You misunderstand and think that the punishment(hell) is something that is done afterwords, but in this story Hell is actually the "touching of the Stove".
No your analogy falls down becuase touching the stove doesn't last for ever. If you the analogy were correct you'd have to burn your daughter on the stoves for all eternity just like the god of christian myth.
Its an analogy....of course it isnt exact or it wouldnt be an analogy...what i was saying is that in my analogy you were getting the representation wrong...i was hoping it was because you didnt understand, rather than just understanding and creating a counterpoint for arguements sake.
Why not? That's what your doing and it's a ridiculous premise to begin with. Your daughter knows that you and the stove definetly exist. If you told her santa was going to punish her in some way for touching the stove, the premise would be closer in some way.
The problem you dont understand is this. That God is All Good and God is Love. Hell is the absence of God. Just think how life even on earth would be without Good or Love. Then you get into the idea of what is worse destroying people or allowing them to exist.
The problem you don't undersand is this. There is no evidence for the existence of god. love and good can exist without a god. The god of the bible is neither good nor loving, particularly old testament god. You speak as though i must understand that god exists, an assumption which is incorrect. If hell is absence of god then welcome to it. You've been living here for some time.
You must not be able to respond to the subject at hand, as usual atheists fall back on the God doesnt exist therefor you cant be right...i wasn't debating about existence...reread what was written and lets see how smart you are...tell me what the topic at hand actually is....this is a Philosophical debate(tiny clue)
Ok my point then is this. If we read the bible,m the god character portrayed within is neither good nor loving. He claims that he is but the evidence is very thin. Destorying all life on earth with a flood, turning a woman into salt for looking back, screwing with a pharaohs free will and then killing him and his army later. The list goes on and on.
Now this is where us believeing that God is Good, starts to confuse people. Since we believe that then when God makes a decision it is the best, most good decision that can be made. PS. the free will thing isnt what was ment, but of course you can believe that it is if you want.
Now you can say that god is just punishing those who deserve to be punished but most of the time those who are punished don't seem to have done much wrong. Also if the god is the one who made up the rules, he must have made the rules exra stringent becuase he enjoys punishing. Ergo god is an evil character who enjoys punishing and hell is an ultimate expression of that. Uneccessary punishment, infinite suffering for finite crimes.
You still dont get it...God did not make up rules, He is the rules, all that is good is what he is and anything that is not is evil. he doesnt enjoy punishing, but as stated before hell is the absence of God there for all that are there need not listen to him and the strongest...the devil, who hates man, will take it out on us.
Actually I thought it seemed as though the devil was on mankinds side. If the serpent in the garden of eden is the devil then surely it helped man. It was god who unneccessarily lied and punished them. And yes god lied becuase he said they would die if they ate from the tree and they didn't. Second of all doesn't the devil get on well with god. Seems so during that ultimate tale of god's dickery, the story of Job.
I noticed that you capitalize the word god, as if it is a proper name rather than just a noun. I think that if I capitalize it, people will acknowledge that I did so and assume that I believe simply by making the word a proper name. What is your take on this?
most christians today are converted for the fear of hell not out of love.& when they think they are in the clear (of hell) they like to go around telling people their going to hell.like their on some power trip..thinking that god pats them on the head every time they terrorize people with hell.people don't understand that gods love is punishment & the fact is your conscience comes alive & you are brain washed to think that an invisible eye is always watching everything you do..illness=religion
dannyharrison09 11 months ago
@zpgJiggleBilly They were not written by eye witnesses because they were made up fairy stories usually variations of other previous stories. So there was nothing to witness. They were written to persuade the credulous to give money and to help the powerful get or retain power. Jesus never existed. It is a myth. As for dying for a cause people do that all the time. It is not unique amongst humans. Much of the myth books were written decades after the alleged events happened.
litesp33d 11 months ago
@litesp33d I think you meant to comment to mike1m
zpgJiggleBilly 11 months ago
Funny, if you really think about it, this whole blog is nothing but trolls. atheism, its a joke really, when you think about it. The whole position is based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. Its 100% intellectually indefensible. You don't think blogs like this are considered trolling? lol
miket1m 11 months ago
@miket1m Think about this, it is possible to believe in god and still be an atheist...... give up? If you believe in say, Zeus, then to Christians you are in fact an atheist becuase you deny their god.
zpgJiggleBilly 11 months ago
@zpgJiggleBilly I don't believe in Zeus, neither does anyone else. We all know that it was made up by the Greeks as in Greek Mythology. The gospels were written by eye witnesses. Why would they lie? Why would they lie about the resurrection and then preach about honesty, truth, etc., and then die for that cause?
miket1m 11 months ago
@miket1m A guy can get high and say he sees things that aren't there, an phsycologically insane person hears things that aren't there, does that make it true? No, but you can't deny sincerity, maybe the gospels were sincere, but they can be deluded, just like so many others in the world. I like the quote (Though I can't remember who said it) "Religion started when the first con man, met the first fool"
handsup48 7 months ago
Oh look - a grim-minded, unbelievably dull, uninteresting, unoriginal, uninspiring oaf.
IslamicFarming 1 year ago
@IslamicFarming Do you plant 'pedo seeds' on your Islamofarm?
Do the girl workers get a good sound thrashing and then some righteous rape is they flash an ankle by accident whilst working or their eye slit slips and a bloke gets a glimpse of nose which then has to be cut off?
Do you use good islamic granite for stoning or import poofy foreign limestones which hardly gash those wanton harlots heads open?
Do you fuck em again after they've been stoned?
I'm stoned now, piss be upon the pedo.
Rockster969 1 year ago
Mathematics don't have anything to do with abiogenesis, in case you mean physics I'd also not agree. Before life on earth, there were simple chemicals (like on all other planets), and nobody has any idea about what happened before - any idea supported by evidence that is.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th Notice I didn't reply to this one?
miket1m 1 year ago
I can't imagine the incredible distance from here to the next Solar System (proxima centauri, about 4 Light Years = 4,200,000,000,000 Kilometres = 60,000 years traveling time for the fastest probes), let alone the furthest in our galaxy (95,000 Light Years), let alone ones in other galaxies, but that doesn't mean all math calculating this distance should be rendered invalid because it's so hard to imagine.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th Yup, you don't know what you're talking about.
miket1m 1 year ago
The complexity is too vast for you to imagine? I can't imagine it either, but that doesn't make evolution untrue. After all, the complex stuff had vast amounts of time (about 3,500,000,000 years) to evolve.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th Yes it does. Evolution is one of the biggest scams of the 20th century. It goes right along with, who's that old guy and that fake global warming theory? lol
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m
you're not a very good troll.
jinnwarior 11 months ago
@jinnwarior Why, I'm not a troll at all Mr Ass Clown. By the looks of your profile pic I would say you are a troll wannabe. But for now, you're just an Ass Clown. Good Night Ass Clown. lol
miket1m 11 months ago
@miket1m
that isn't a good improvement.
jinnwarior 11 months ago
@jinnwarior How about this, you're a couple of dilithium crystals short of a warp core. You have a brain like a BB in a boxcar.
miket1m 11 months ago
@miket1m
insults are the lowest form of trolling and the easiest to see through.
proper and effective trolling requires you to make your victim think anything you're saying is in any way serious.
jinnwarior 11 months ago
Comment removed
miket1m 11 months ago
Science means knowledge.
If micro occurs, macro occurs after a longer period of time. In essence, they are the same thing. Microevolution is observable and does occur, that's true. But then logically, macroevolution also must be true.
Now, Macroevolution is of course not just derived from Microevolution. Fossiles show that it happens.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th No they're not. Are you serious? I thought you knew what you were talking about. btw, prove it.
miket1m 1 year ago
Nick Gisburne is not love, Nick Gisburne is illogical.
For one to say there is no God, necessitates that one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience). For one to say there is no sufficient evidence to support the existence of God necessitates that one would have to have seen all the evidence in the world. Atheist attacks on theology is a feeble attempt to make their position appear to be somewhat intellectually viable. It is not.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m
Have you seen ANY evidence pointing to the christian god being real? AND the only true god? The only reasons leading theists to believe is fear of hell and indoctrination.
Which is more likely, some charismatic schizophrenic fraud showing up one day proclaiming he had spoken to the living god or some supernatural deity actually choosing a bunch of people in some desert to praise him and giving them some set of arbitrary rules among obvious moral standards?
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th Yes I have seen evidence that supports the existence of God. The Laws of Logic for one. There is quite a bit of evidence that supports the existence of God.
In order to say there is no God, one would have to have complete and absolute knowledge of the entire universe (omniscience). For one to say there is no sufficient evidence to support the existence of God, necessitates that one would have to have seen all the world. Atheism is illogical and 100% intellectually indefensible.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m You can't tell me one thing that proves the christian god. I'd like to see you try.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th I can't tell you one thing that proves the Christian God? Why is that, is it because you just can’t, or should I say won’t, believe God exists? Like I said earlier, I do have proof. For one, the Atheist's inability to account for the existence of the Laws of Logic. Can you, as an Atheist account for their existence? I doubt it, but give it your best shot.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Wait, you do have proof that God exist? What is that proof? Don't just go on, that's something interesting.
And yeah, I can account for the existence of the laws of logic. At least, they are infinitely more probable than a complex intelligence preceding the universe as we know it. Also, since you are using logic in discussion and since, as I assume, you are using logic to show that god exists, you also have to account for the laws.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th Of course, First I want to verify what Laws I am speaking of:
1. The Law of Identity - Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. The Law of non Contradiction - Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle - a statement is either true or false. Therfore, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.
miket1m 1 year ago
@ac1th Also: These Laws are absolute truth statements and form the basis of rational discourse. They are transcendent. They are not dependent on the material world. They are are conceptual by nature.
Now, you first, how do you, as an atheist account for their existence?
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Where they actually come from isn't important to me, they apparently work. What I'd like to know is how me not being able to prove where logic came from has to do with the christian god being the only true god.
I could make up any story how they came to be and it would be equally believable to the god theory.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th You saying they're existence isn't important to you is weak intellectual reasoning and doesn't account for their existence.
The atheists inability to account account for the existence of the Laws of Logic has everything to do with proving the existence of God. The laws of logic were not created by God or man, so how do you account for their existence? Think hard, you can't account for the Logical Absolutes. No Atheist can. Christians can.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Right, it's not intellectual reason at all, I just don't see why I should bluntly assert JHWH to be true and worship him even though there is an infinite amount of explanations for how the universe could have come to exist.
Any religion is intellectually bankrupt, because you have to assert the existence of your god before you can even start to argue. Since this position is not backed up by proof, everything built on it is invalid.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th "How the universe COULD have come to exist..." Right, the old quaint evolution theory. Well actually, its not even a theory, its just an absurd idea.
I thought we were debating the existence of God and not theology. You can debunk theology all day long, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God. There is proof for God and I just showed you two proofs. I am simply pointing out how illogical the Atheist position is. Really, how do you validate your position.
miket1m 1 year ago
@ac1th The Atheist fails to account for the existence of the Laws of Logic because they do not have a God in their lives. They are a reflection of His character:L
1. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
2. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
3. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
4. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
Man being made in the image of God is able to discover them
miket1m 1 year ago
@ac1th The Atheists inability to account for Morality. Another proof for the existence of God.
As a worldview, Atheism is intellectually bankrupt and wrought with philosophical problems.
miket1m 1 year ago
@saynotodarwin so will you
144mtl441 1 year ago
is GOD not allowed to decide what HE wants to do?
ThePiousOne5 1 year ago
Fuck you. Why do you fucking christians have to come and condemn us? You know nothing of Christianity, for if you see an atheist like this, you should pray for him, not quietly revel in his eternal damnation you sick fucking bastard. If hell exists, you and your brethren will be the first to rot away into endless anguish, a forgiving punishment at that for the hell you keep causing.
ImTheKobold 2 years ago
@ImTheKobold YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!! That scares the shit out of you doesn't it? Be careful, don't be too disrespectful to God for too long. That type of sin is definitely unforgivable.
miket1m 1 year ago
A lot of the time when I mention christianity and religion in the same sentence, christians correct me that "It's not a religion, it's a relationship with Jesus/God." The ol' "Love me or burn in Hell" is a pretty tough premise for a religion, let alone relationship. I can't understand why or how people could see it as a good deal, or how they could feel love for such a being who would do that simply because they were told to. Good video, articulates some confusions I've had for a while.
Shindai 2 years ago
@Shindai Because you're a brainless savage, thats why you can't understand fool
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m I can't tell which side of the debate you represent, but offering nothing to the argument in favour of insulting someone's intelligence because they expressed a lack of understanding on what is, to put it mildly, an incredibly open-to-interpretation subject, is not a positive reflection of your own intelligence. But perhaps you're right, I am a fool to expect anything else from youtube.
Shindai 1 year ago
@Shindai
I simply state that is illogical for one to take such a strong position based on nothing but simple abstract possibility. Atheism fails to account for the Laws of Logic, Rationality, Morals, etc.. Atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Since when is not knowing something for sure "such a strong position"? You seem a lot more certain that anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is a moron than I am about just about anything I can think of :p
Shindai 1 year ago
@Shindai You defend your position don't you? I see the majority of atheists attempt to articulate their atheism in a strategic way as to make it unassailable. Every atheist I've ever encountered expends energy trying to refute theistic arguments and defending atheism. Prayer out of schools, All sorts of legal battles. I would say they take it seriously and take a strong position, yes.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m _Mandatory_ prayer was removed from schools. Nobody can stop you from praying if you want to.
Yeah, he defends his position. Strange. He should just give in and become religious like every rational person. Like you!
You didn't get what I wrote. I wasn't suggesting that the universe could have popped into existence, I was merely pointing out that you can't know what actually happened. There are tons of explanations that would be supported by some kind of evidence.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th You're not dealing with your everyday Theist here. As for evolution I think evolution is a great deception. It goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you have studied it thoroughly, then undoubtedly, you should have encountered evidence contrary to your belief. So then, is evolution an absolute fact? If you are talking genetic change over time, are you referring to micro or macro?
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Micro- and macroevolution both mean genetic change over time. As a matter of fact, no I have not researched it thoroughly. Then again, it's scientific consensus all over the world, and every try to refute it has either been on shaky ground to begin with or was clearly disproven (look up your thermodynamics claim on talkorigins org).
Evolution is a scientific fact. I wouldn't say it's absolute though because minor pieces of data get changed or added sometimes.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th Thats what I said.
If you have not researched it then how do you know it is scientific fact? I would say that you are going by what you hear and you have no clue about Evolution. If this is not true then tell me why you think is is not a bunch of crap and it is fact.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Now that was a predictable reply. I already wrote why I think it's not a bunch of crap. By the way, you forgot to tell me what your proof of god was. "Your theory is shit" doesn't count.
ac1th 1 year ago
@ac1th No, my reply is not crap. You tell me how you as an Atheist accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic. You can't. So far, I am certainly not impressed with your argument. Please tell me again why you think evolution is an absolute fact. Especially since you have never studied it. Do you have a degree, if so in what?
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Try reading my last comment
ac1th 1 year ago
1.
@ac1th Evolution is not even science. Science means "to study." How can you study something that doesn't exist? How can you call evolution science if it can't be studied?
Micro - change in allele frequency. Macro - one species to another: Radical DNA restructuring. Micro occurs. But I believe in the genetic 'lessening' of the gene pool through time, not its increase. Also, when I look at the eye, the heart, etc. The complexity is simply too vast.
miket1m 1 year ago
2.
@ac1th Abiogenesis is an absurdity, mathematically. I just can't buy the change of DNA info on such levels its too complex. Do you agree that abiogenesis is impossible mathematically?
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m Your appeal to incredulity based on your own ignorance couldn't un interest me more, lucky ya got these words. Anyway, which brand of skyddady do you circumnavigate the intellect with?
Rockster969 1 year ago
@Rockster969 Perhaps we should get your intellect it's own chair, I think we have some doll house furniture around here somewhere. If your ego were any larger, NASA would be sending a probe to investigate it. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is an egotistical maniac with a low self esteem cause by his poor relationship with his father. Aahh how did he know that? You are obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool. "Smell me" You need an old fashion kick in your rude ass, old boy!
miket1m 1 year ago
@Rockster969 Stop functioning from your limbic system. If your I.Q. reaches room temperature, sell! Personally, I refuse to debate with anything that is more than 75% water.
miket1m 1 year ago
@miket1m <3
ac1th 1 year ago
Good work
Teirusu155 3 years ago
Exactly...you can't have a constuctive debate with theists, especially Jesus freaks...because they assume god is real. they can't do a hypothetical:) we have to make them realize how stupid they are by saying...i believe in santa claus! How do you know i'm wrong!??? LOL
whole27 3 years ago
He makes some pretty damn good points in this video.
Thasnks for the great, informative video.
Steveman27 4 years ago 2
Ok...God did not lie...originally we, humans, were not suppose to die...when you said you will die he was right they did die. just like if i said if you smoke you will get cancer, the first cigarette you smoke doesnt lead to haveing to go to chemo the next day.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Smoking doesn't always cause cancer. Damn you need work on your analogies. They are strained at best. Fine then, if you'd like to think it was meant that way. Still why did god want humans to remain ignorant? They say ignorance is bliss but I'd rather gain knowledge and be misserable than be a satisfied fool. The whole story is very reminiscent of Prometheus.
Twackius 4 years ago
ya well if God, instead of me had said it, it would always cause cancer. understand the idea before you critisize an analogy. The knowledge was about evil...you dont need evil to live a happy or knowledgeable life. I mean of all the knowledge in the universe each of us dont know much...and life can still be misserable if youlike.
nomyturn 4 years ago
I would say you do need evil in order to be happy. If there was no evil or badness how would you know what happy or good were? What yardstick for comparison would you have to evaluate your state of well being. And no, your analogies just suck. Don't try to accuse me of ignorance to get around your bullshit analogies.
Twackius 4 years ago
For example, you say that you would always get cancer if god said it. But in your comment you clearly say "if i said if you smoke you will get cancer." Clearly you are indicating that it is YOU saying it not god. Maybe you should read your own comments before accusing me of ignorance.
Twackius 4 years ago
you dont need evil to be happy...no yard stick needed. your analysis of my analogies suck....see we both can play that game.
nomyturn 4 years ago
All I'm saying is would life be interesting if everyone was constantly happy? That's why I don't get heaven. Why would constant bliss be satisfying? What makes life interesting is the trials and tribulations, the struggles and overcoming things. And dude, your analogies do suck. I pointed out exactly what was wrong with your last one and that was the best comeback you could make. Pffft.
Twackius 4 years ago
First is was making a distinction between if i say some thing and if God says something...if i said it will rain frogs tomorrow, odds are it wont...if God says it...it will.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Right, this discussion won't work. You pressupose god, I can't do that. If I were to say that it won't rain frogs because mythical characters can't talk, then you'll just say something like it will because god isn't mythical.
Twackius 4 years ago
this line of philosophical discussion already has God existing as a pretense...if you wanted to talk about a different philosophical debate because you cant grasp this one then just do..we could talk about a presupposition of no god or an evil god or what ever...but this discussion was about following the Christian God and how we know him not how others try to make him
nomyturn 4 years ago
Fine. Well as I was saying pressupossing the christian god iplies an evil deity from what I get from the text.
Twackius 4 years ago
iplies=implies
Twackius 4 years ago
Well nice talking to you Twackius...but i got to start my semester end run for finals and youtube takes up way too much time...check you out in january...keep searching for what is good and God Bless.
nomyturn 4 years ago
His comments remind me of my 4 year old daughter...i tell her don't put your hand on the red hot stove or you will be burned and be in pain...and she gets mad at me like im trying to punish her...when all im doing is telling her what the conseqences are...God Bless.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Why should there be consequences for not returning affection to an admirer? Besides, telling someone the consequences might produce obedience akin to that of a scared slave but it doesn't produce faith or love. The most threats can do is induce someone to act like they have faith or love to avoid the punishment. I think the Christian god, were he real, would appreciate loving service not frightened groveling.
DraconicD 4 years ago
amazingly only people who dont like Christians think that obedience stems from fear, where most Christians believe it stems from love. So just because you would do something out of fear doesnt mean we do...God Bless.
nomyturn 4 years ago
GOD BLESS YOU
zaktuta 4 years ago
Hahahaha, of course he will.
Twackius 4 years ago
She can hear, touch, (smell?) and see you, and see and touch the stove with the use of her senses. Unlike...
3zaqxsw3 4 years ago
If your daughter ignores your warning and touches the stove again do you then throw her into a pit of stoves to be burned for all eternity?
Twackius 4 years ago
You misunderstand and think that the punishment(hell) is something that is done afterwords, but in this story Hell is actually the "touching of the Stove".
nomyturn 4 years ago
No your analogy falls down becuase touching the stove doesn't last for ever. If you the analogy were correct you'd have to burn your daughter on the stoves for all eternity just like the god of christian myth.
Twackius 4 years ago
Its an analogy....of course it isnt exact or it wouldnt be an analogy...what i was saying is that in my analogy you were getting the representation wrong...i was hoping it was because you didnt understand, rather than just understanding and creating a counterpoint for arguements sake.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Why not? That's what your doing and it's a ridiculous premise to begin with. Your daughter knows that you and the stove definetly exist. If you told her santa was going to punish her in some way for touching the stove, the premise would be closer in some way.
Twackius 4 years ago
The problem you dont understand is this. That God is All Good and God is Love. Hell is the absence of God. Just think how life even on earth would be without Good or Love. Then you get into the idea of what is worse destroying people or allowing them to exist.
nomyturn 4 years ago
The problem you don't undersand is this. There is no evidence for the existence of god. love and good can exist without a god. The god of the bible is neither good nor loving, particularly old testament god. You speak as though i must understand that god exists, an assumption which is incorrect. If hell is absence of god then welcome to it. You've been living here for some time.
Twackius 4 years ago
You must not be able to respond to the subject at hand, as usual atheists fall back on the God doesnt exist therefor you cant be right...i wasn't debating about existence...reread what was written and lets see how smart you are...tell me what the topic at hand actually is....this is a Philosophical debate(tiny clue)
nomyturn 4 years ago
Ok my point then is this. If we read the bible,m the god character portrayed within is neither good nor loving. He claims that he is but the evidence is very thin. Destorying all life on earth with a flood, turning a woman into salt for looking back, screwing with a pharaohs free will and then killing him and his army later. The list goes on and on.
Twackius 4 years ago
Now this is where us believeing that God is Good, starts to confuse people. Since we believe that then when God makes a decision it is the best, most good decision that can be made. PS. the free will thing isnt what was ment, but of course you can believe that it is if you want.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Now you can say that god is just punishing those who deserve to be punished but most of the time those who are punished don't seem to have done much wrong. Also if the god is the one who made up the rules, he must have made the rules exra stringent becuase he enjoys punishing. Ergo god is an evil character who enjoys punishing and hell is an ultimate expression of that. Uneccessary punishment, infinite suffering for finite crimes.
Twackius 4 years ago
You still dont get it...God did not make up rules, He is the rules, all that is good is what he is and anything that is not is evil. he doesnt enjoy punishing, but as stated before hell is the absence of God there for all that are there need not listen to him and the strongest...the devil, who hates man, will take it out on us.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Actually I thought it seemed as though the devil was on mankinds side. If the serpent in the garden of eden is the devil then surely it helped man. It was god who unneccessarily lied and punished them. And yes god lied becuase he said they would die if they ate from the tree and they didn't. Second of all doesn't the devil get on well with god. Seems so during that ultimate tale of god's dickery, the story of Job.
Twackius 4 years ago
Good vid. Good thoughts. You seem like you've read some philosophy. That's what sold me on this. Lots of reading and thinking:)
AssyMcDoodle 4 years ago
I noticed that you capitalize the word god, as if it is a proper name rather than just a noun. I think that if I capitalize it, people will acknowledge that I did so and assume that I believe simply by making the word a proper name. What is your take on this?
hauser5 5 years ago
sometimes I capitalise it, sometimes i don't. It doesn't really bother me. It's capitalised in this vid coz this is the way nick wrote the title.
Twackius 5 years ago