I got BANNED from commenting by Atheist Experience SIMPLY for suggesting they tackle other religions like Judaism, and look into the racism and other immorality within the Jewish oral law.
That PROVES right there that they're NOT an atheist organization at all, rather simply an anti-Christian organization (and I'm not a Christian).
Because some of these hypocrites are ethnically Jewish (some of the hosts) they REFUSE to talk about the Jewish religion, so they're not proper atheists at all!
Warning: fundamentalism and intelligence to not mix. It is folly to challenge hard core beliefs -- I have yet to see any fundamentalists be sold on science.
The Atheist Experience team are abunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and become as the people they accuse
@pandstar My experience with them is that they block you if you are reasoned in any kind of interaction; unless they have someone they can make a clown of they don't want any intellectual correspondence at all. That is my experience
@no1hoopsman I have never heard a reasoned idea come from the mouth of a fundamentalist. What most religious people do not (cannot) embrace is the onus of proof. When one asserts veracity of a belief or theory, the onus is upon one to produce proofs. So, where is your proof? I will give you $1000 if you can scientifically verify any supernatural phenomena, including ANY gods. In 19.5 years of teaching, I have never had to pay out a dime.
@detroitboy65 I agree; I've never heard a reasoned statement coming from a fundie either. I disagree with your view about religious people and the veracity of proof; there have been philosphers, theologians, scientists and all sorts of reasonable intelligent people who believe in a creative force or power or God. The theologians in the time of Augustine came to the view that creation was instant (Big Bang) not the literal 7 days as the fundie requires with this reductive literalism
@no1hoopsman Belief and intelligence are not always opposed; however, there is a no requisite for an intelligent person to make a reasoned, empirical argument where religious belief is concerned. Also, it has been noted that among the minority of scientists who are also believers, the substance of their belief is usually rather vanilla and vague. And you are dead wrong about scientists as any true scientist would never attempt to prove a negative as to do so is meaningless.
@detroitboy65 There is also a very good set of clips with Dawkins and Fr George Coyne; a jesuit scientist, on YT. Dawkins excluded them from his TV show, precisely because they undermined his argument and didn't show the fundie fruitcake version he requires; fundamentalism is found in atheism as well I suggest
@no1hoopsman Augustine had no scientific basis for his creation postulation, and theologians, as a rule, are inherently illogical about supernatural belief. As before: rational thought and fundamentalism do not mix -- ever.
@detroitboy65 It is wrong to include Augustine as a fundamentalist; that would say more asbout you than Augustine and would put the emphasis on your fundamentalist stance on religion. Super nature is a term used by cosmologists; they use terms like parallel worlds/ parallel universes, based on rational theories....where is the difference do you think ?
@TheHigherVoltage "I wouldn't 'believe' that supernatural or natural. "Personal testimonies" are the worst form of evidence. Ask any cop."
The example I provided wasn't a personal testimony. In my hypothetical, it was a well documented fact including autopsy report and a dna match to make sure it was him.
Again, you dodged my question:
How would you know if God is behind this or if it's some other natural cause which hasn't yet been discovered?
@IfUrGivingIn But this is neither here nor there. If you're arguing for biblegod as a real God, he can easily give evidence for his existence. All he'd have to do is keep his promises.
According to Jesus, all who are baptized and believe gain superpowers - including healing people with a touch.
Tell me, if Jesus is real, why do we have hospitals and doctors? Why aren't Christians going to faith healers after a car accident?
@TheHigherVoltage 2. Also you argue that there is no proof of God, and you're correct that there isn't any physical proof of him. If there was we would all become overly dependent on him and not want to fix our own problems.
2. Also you argue that there is no proof of God, and you're correct that there isn't any physical proof of him. If there was we would all become overly dependent on him and not want to fix our own problems.
@EducateTroll "Also you argue that there is no proof of God, and you're correct that there isn't any physical proof of him."
That's the problem with delusions - there's never any physical proof.
" If there was we would all become overly dependent on him and not want to fix our own problems."
Not only do you shoot the "have complete faith in God" in the foot, you completely subvert bible dogma : that even people who supposedly 'knew God' could still do their own thing. (ie. Adam and Eve.)
I thought at first that this guy was a prank caller, but I don't think so now and I feel deeply, deeply sad for him. He's obviously had only a passing experience with formal reasoning, and it really shows in how he defends his viewpoints.
I don't think he's an idiot, it's just that he missed out on the chance to figure things out for himself. I hope he took something helpful from the show; even if he doesn't ditch his theism, maybe he will at least become a more conscientious believer.
@EducateTroll Of course they understand what he is saying, the problem is he does not understand what he is saying. To have a conversation you have to be on the same level, that is why Tracie slow down the conversation a bit for him to catch up.
@EducateTroll Adults completely understand a 6 year old when they discuss Santa Claus myths. Simply saying "You've been lied to and that's that." is smart ass. Asking questions to get the child to realize on their own that Santa is a myth, is smart...and far more caring to the child.
@TheHigherVoltage No, you're wrong. First of all, let's ignore the whole Santa Claus analogy because it's stupid and you chose it specifically because it's an obvious lie, which you probably think Christianity is. Let's talk about the actual video. She's being a smart ass because she understands what he's trying to say, but acts as if she doesn't. She uses mediocre questions to "prove him wrong" and he just isn't able to defend his point properly against her barrage of mediocrity.
@EducateTroll "an obvious lie, which you probably think Christianity is."
Christianity tells as many lies as all the other myth-based god cults, or the Santa Claus myths for that matter.
She asked questions that intellectually honest people ask. If the caller had of asked these questions himself with intellectual integrity, before declaring faith they were true, he wouldn't be defending them.
She was pointing out the logical inconsistances and errors in the caller's thinking that he skipped
@TheHigherVoltage Those are not questions that intellectual people ask, because a miracle is not something that depends on mere statistics. It does not matter if something is extremely likely to happen or extremely unlikely to happen. What makes a miracle a miracle is divine intervention. Those two idiots failed to see that.
@EducateTroll According to the bible, miracles are magic - severed ears being reattached, every first born in a city being killed by angels, a whole graveyard of dead people walking around the town, talking donkeys, seas being split - and trees wilting from a word.
Like all godcult religions, Christianity is snake oil salesmen techniques, unsubstantiated stories and placebo effects.
Why aren't Christians feeding the poor by multiplying fish and bread with magic like Jesus said they could?
@TheHigherVoltage No shit miracles are magic why does that matter? Where did you get the whole graveyard of dead people and the talking donkey parts from? 1. Where did Jesus say that they could do that? 2. Even if he did say so, maybe we can't anymore because we don't need to, we're just too gluttonous. We have the largest obesity percentage here in America, yet there's people in Africa starving to death. I'm not a Christian I just feel the need to defend their point accurately.
@EducateTroll "Where did you get the whole graveyard of dead people "
The gospels. As the story goes, a whole cemetary of dead people rose with Jesus to walk around town and talk with people...funny how this amazing, earth shattering event isn't recorded until decades after. Almost like it was just made up.
" and the talking donkey parts " Look up the fable of Balaam in the bible.
Not knowing these stories are from the bible, it seems likely you've never read it.
@TheHigherVoltage 1. You never refuted my other points so I assume that I won those particular arguments.
2. Okay we must have read different versions of the bible because I have never read about a whole cemetery of dead people rising or the fable of Balaam, but I just read the fable of Balaam and it said that the angel occupied the Donkey's mouth because the man riding it kept beating it for not going away from the pillar of light supposed to be God
@EducateTroll 1. What other points? 2. Read the gospels. After Jesus supposedly rose from the dead, a shitload of people supposedly rose from the dead too. 3. Jesus did say everything (that would include his coming back for judgement day) would happen within the lives of those around him. Go figure. Jesus lied again.
2. I think that's referring to Jesus raising all of the souls in limbo up into heaven, I could be wrong though. Could you point out what verse it talks about that in?
3. What verse did he say that in? And you implied he has lied before; where?
4. I know this seems like a cop-out, but even if you don't believe that Jesus was Christ you cannot argue that he was millenia ahead of his time as far as his teachings of equality go.
@EducateTroll 1. Your comment was "What makes a miracle a miracle is divine intervention." which is moot.
If that's the only stipulation to define 'miracle', everything and nothing is a miracle. I spilled my coffee! It's a miracle! I just cured a whole hospital of cancer patients by breathing on them...but it's not a miracle.
Unless a definition is precise, it's useless.
What Tracie did was prod the caller to define miracle further, until it actually made sense...which it never did.
@TheHigherVoltage 1. What do you mean everything and nothing is a miracle? I'm trying to point out that what makes a miracle a miracle is something that God intervenes in that would not have normally happened. I think that you're saying something like there's no way to physically tell that a miracle is a miracle? You're right there isn't, but so what? He was forced to "define" the miracle further, except it isn't a percentage that makes a miracle a miracle, like I said.
@EducateTroll "I think that you're saying something like there's no way to physically tell that a miracle is a miracle?" By your definition, there isn't.
" You're right there isn't, but so what?" Then the word is useless and pointless.
@TheHigherVoltage 2. Again, that could be referring to raising up the saints from purgatory into heaven, but let's suppose that it isn't. You're right, it's extremely unlikely, but logically if Jesus was God, he could have done something like that. And how do you know that there's no evidence for that? All we have are fragments of vases and the occasional scroll from that long ago. Maybe people did write about it, but it's been lost to time.
@EducateTroll 2. "Again, that could be referring to raising up the saints from purgatory into heaven"
ok man, the verses are "52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Bodies of saints...breaking out of graves...go to visit people in the city. That's what the book says.
Why do you tell yourself (and me) it could say something else?
@TheHigherVoltage 2. I'm not saying I'm right, because I'm probably wrong. I'm just saying that it's possible. So even if saints did break out of their graves and visit people in the city why is that proof that Jesus wasn't God?
2. Like what evidence? Can you give me a link or something?
5. Meekness does not equal inaction. Meekness is being humble. Jesus could be saying they would inherit the earth after the rapture.
@EducateTroll 2. Statements in any book are proof of anything. They are assertions.
2/b. You could start with 'Near Eastern archaeology' and work from there.
4. why did you not respond to my comments countering your 'equality in the bible' claim?
5. My point was that the childish promise reinforces inequality.
"6. Stop telling me to "read my bible" it isn't my bible, I'm just trying to defend it properly --" Stop. You can't defend anything properly without knowing it.
4. Jesus did not say that, people say that he came to verify it. Where did Paul write that? And I already talked about the meek beatitude.
5. What are you talking about? Inequality (the type that I'm referring to and that you implied) is the basis of a good society. Rich people give to the poor, people give kindness to those who don't deserve it. Generosity (or inequality in a way) is good.
6. How about you shut the fuck up you arrogant cunt
@EducateTroll 2. Don't take my word for it - think about it : the Illiad was revered as 'truth about the Gods' for centuries. Is it? Are the Vedas true just because people wrote them over thousands of years? How about the Quran? Or Harry Potter?
4. According to the bible, it's all biblegod's words - the chosen people, the orders for slavery, treating women as property, etc. were all stated in the OT and given the nod by the NT.
@EducateTroll 5. Inequality (not treating everyone equally) is not wealth disparity. Examples of inequality is slavery...treating women like shit...demanding some people must be favored over others.
6. How about you actually learn what the fuck you're talking about before attempting to 'properly defend it'? What else do you attempt to defend without knowing wtf you're talking about?
@EducateTroll More specifically, what the fuck is your position? You claim you're not a Christian. You claim the bible is not your book. Yet, here you are defending it as if you, are and it is.
You clearly haven't read the whole bible, yet claim to be 'properly defending it'. And have the balls to call me 'an arrogant cunt' for pointing out your uninformed approach.
So what's the deal here? Are you a Christian who's lying? Or an mentally defective non-believer?
@TheHigherVoltage Okay fine, you want to know my position? I'm a theist. I do not subscribe to any particular religion, however I believe that there is a benevolent God which transcends humanity. I have not read the whole bible, you're right. You want to get down to the nitty-gritty, then? Why don't you tell me what you believe in and if it in anyway contradicts what I believe in I will fucking destroy your childish claims using my untouchable logic.
@EducateTroll untouchable logic? Tell me, what 'logical steps' did you take in determining there's only one god and not many? What logical steps did you take to conclude that this one god is benevolent?
@EducateTroll "What logical steps did you take to disprove God?"
If we're going to go down this road, our conversation will have to be specific and precise. So specifically, what God/Godconcept are you referring to?
@EducateTroll As for me, I don't deal in 'beliefs'. To say "I believe" means nothing - children believe in Santa. I only care about knowledge that's verifiably accurate.
With regards to the topic at hand : I know there's a possibility of several, one, or no Creator(s). I know the bible is as (verifiably) fiction as the quran, the vedas the illiad, and Star Wars.
I know that (religious) faith/belief is as illogical and intellectually dishonest as saying "I like to tell myself".
@EducateTroll "How do you know that the bible the quran, the illiad, and star wars are fake?"
Once again, to have this conversation requires specifics and precision. If you're serious about your question, pick one : the bible, the quran, the illiad or star wars.
@EducateTroll I'm curious...if you haven't read the whole bible, and I assume you haven't read much of any other self-professed 'words from God(s)', (like the quran, the vedas, the pyramid texts, or any other the other thousands of surviving and still used 'Holy Books'), on what grounds do you claim belief? Faith?
@TheHigherVoltage 1. I guess I need to be more specific in my beliefs. I believe that there is some form of supernatural entity(s) and some form of "heaven."
2. You only care about knowledge that is verifiably accurate? It sounds to me like you believe only in things that you can physically touch or see.
3. So it sounds to me like you believe only in science per say, is that correct?
@EducateTroll 1. And do you believe in a criteria to get to this heaven?
2. Once again, I don't deal in 'beliefs'. If it can't be tested, 'belief' is just playing make believe.
3. I recognize the scientific method as being the best road to figuring out the truth we've figured out so far. However, just because someone says 'science', doesn't mean I 'believe' it.
@TheHigherVoltage 1. No, I have a more deterministic viewpoint. However there could be a criteria if we really do have free will. Maybe in the next life we will be merely spirits, and thus not have bodily desires to control our will and will be judged based upon our decisions there.
2. If it can't be tested? How do you test free will, freedom, good, evil? They are concepts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Knowledge isn't merely physical
@EducateTroll 2. 'Knowledge', in my vocabulary, is testable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, irrefutable facts. Anything less than 'knowledge' contains degrees of uncertainty, and is at best an educated guess, at worse, delusion.
"How do you test free will, freedom, good, evil?" all these concepts are fluid, and vary based on definitions, perceptions and perspectives. I'd need a precise definition.
"... that doesn't mean they don't exist." Agreed. It also doesn't mean they do exist.
@TheHigherVoltage 2. "all these concepts are fluid, and vary based on definitions, perceptions, and perspectives." No they do not. You could argue the same thing for anything in the whole world. Everybody in the world knows the meaning of freedom. Every culture to ever exist has had laws about killing and stealing.
"It also doesn't mean they do exist." It seems like you only see knowledge as being physical. Just the fact that we are able to discuss these concepts means that they exist.
@EducateTroll "Everybody in the world knows the meaning of freedom."
No, they do not. Some people claim freedom is the ability to believe what you want (secularism). Other people claim freedom is only even possible if you believe exactly as they do. (Evangelical Christians)
Good and evil are also fluid concepts, and based on perspective. I think eternal torture is evil. Many people call it a good thing.
@TheHigherVoltage I'm talking about physical freedom not spiritual freedom.
2. Good and evil are not based on perspectives. Nobody would agree that eternal torture is a good thing. I'm sure you could find somebody that does believe that, but he's probably just fucking crazy. Like I said, every single culture has had some form of moral system and they were all based upon the same moral ground.
Once again, subjective. Some people define physical freedom as the ability to kill people for sport. Others define physical freedom as limited by not hurting anyone.
"Good and evil are not based on perspectives." Yes, they are.
eg. Is the death penalty good or bad?
"Nobody would agree that eternal torture is a good thing."
Ask a Christian or Muslim. If they back their fairy tales, they'll say it's not only good, it's just.
@TheHigherVoltage Yes you're right that some parts of them are subjective, but in order for two people to even debate about good and evil they have to have some form of common moral ground, which is inherent in all of us.
@EducateTroll " in order for two people to even debate about good and evil they have to have some form of common moral ground, which is inherent in all of us."
@TheHigherVoltage The points about how just the fact that we are able to understand a concept means that it exists on some plane or another, about how there is more than mere scientific knowledge, and how we would all become too dependent on God if he openly showed his existence.
@EducateTroll "The points about how just the fact that we are able to understand a concept means that it exists on some plane or another"
That's delusional. I can understand the concept of tiny elves living in each cell of my body, and as they get old, the cell gets old. That doesn't mean there's tiny elves in any cell controlling aging, in any plane of existence.
Just because someone can understand a concept, doesn't make it true or real - anywhere.
@EducateTroll "and how we would all become too dependent on God if he openly showed his existence."
Once again, believers are to be 100% dependent on their myth gods - without proof.
For biblegod, there's Adam and Eve, the Isrealites at the base of the mount worshiping the Golden Calf, and even most of the apostle stories not having complete trust in Jesus - that refutes your statement.
The "God won't show himself because it would destroy free will" argument is an excuse for believing a lie.
@IfUrGivingIn So...God has shown himself...so that we can easily identify him...by hiding in circumstantial arguments that can be explained many other different ways?
If any God(s) wanted us to know of their existence, they'd know exactly how to get us that message crystal clear.
It would not take fantastical stories, leaps of faith, and the 'fill in the blanks with wishful thinking' that every godcult on the planet sells as 'the REAL God(s)!'.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be explained many ways. "there's presents under the tree - evidence Santa is real!"
Then there's valid evidence that can only be explained one way....and verified to be the result of that one way. "The bible says all who are baptized and believe can lay on hands. I am baptized and believe and have cured 3 full hospitals. Come with me and watch as I cure another full hospital." Is valid evidence.
I re-read it, it still didn't make sense. How can a valid argument be circumstantial?
You still didn't answer my question. How can God get his message across crystal clear that he exists if we interpret all facts with a naturalistic perception?
@IfUrGivingIn I'll use an example : if you find presents under the tree, would you also claim that's evidence for Santa? Or would you realize that's circumstantial evidence...as there's other explanations...so it's not valid evidence for Santa?
"How can God get his message across crystal clear that he exists..."
Your God can't figure that out?
"... if we interpret all facts with a naturalistic perception?"
Assigning supernatural interpretations is playing make believe.
@IfUrGivingIn I find it interesting that you claim to see supernatural evidence for your God in the natural...then imply that's all he can do.
Why can't a supernatural God provide supernatural evidence? According to the godmyths you believe, you're promised all kinds of supernatural powers. All who are baptized and believe are suppose to be able to drink deadly poisons without being harmed, heal the sick with a touch, and perform supernatural feats.
@IfUrGivingIn Assigning a supernatural interpretation is not the same as verifying supernatural evidence.
Assigning a supernatural interpretation : I got over the flu, and I prayed to Jesus, so Jesus did it.
Validating supernatural evidence : a voice in sky says "I am God and am eliminating cancer" - and all traces of cancer vanish from our planet immediately..
If you can't see how these are 2 totally different things, it's no wonder you believe in fairy tales :/
@IfUrGivingIn You asked me what evidence could real God(s) give to prove their existence. I said supernatural evidence.
Does your church have those Holy Spirit flames that appear above everyone's head? Bible stories have it happening several times - a sign that the Holy Spirit was there. Where's your Holy Spirit flame? How about speaking in different languages? Can you actually do this? Or does your 'speaking in tongues' ability equate to gibberish?
If everyone on the planet suddenly started speaking and understanding the same language, would you understand that as supernatural? Or would be the only person on the planet that would claim there must be a natural explanation?
@IfUrGivingIn This is what it boils down to : If God(s) cannot figure out how to reveal themselves in a way that we would all know for sure that they are God(s) ---- then they are incompetent or do not exist in the first place.
And this is neither here nor there. The bible, like all godcult books, promise superpowers to believers. Jesus goes so far as to promise all who are baptized and believe will gain specific super powers, including laying on hands.
@IfUrGivingIn I found myself wondering how supernatural God(s) could reveal their existence, and as far as your God is concerned, it'd be as easy as changing what his mythology claims he's done.
According to the Babel story, biblegod was angry at humans for building a tower (interestingly enough, we've got skyscrapers now and no magic sky daddy destroying them). In any event, as part of 'the punishment', biblegod magically made everyone speak different languages.
@TheHigherVoltage "According to the Babel story, biblegod was angry at humans for building a tower (interestingly enough, we've got skyscrapers now and no magic sky daddy destroying them). In any event, as part of 'the punishment', biblegod magically made everyone speak different languages.
Have Jebus undo that."
If Jesus undid that, a naturalist could say "we don't know but because we don't know we shouldn't say god did it."
@ASo5one "Me and like 6.5 billion people either didn't see it it or accidentliy looked away."
I can excuse you and your "6.5 billion people" not hearing about miracles but you must have looked away on purpose in regards to existence and freewill.
@EducateTroll "Like I said, every single culture has had some form of moral system and they were all based upon the same moral ground."
Not even close. Cannibalism, human sacrifices, slavery, keeping women as property, guilty until proven innocent/innocent until proven guilty, the rich have the right to kill serfs, the rich don't have the right to kill serfs.
Morality is formed by individual societies. Any common ground is from employing the same reasoning...not some supernatural base.
ex. Theists often claim to 'know' things about God(s). However, as they cannot provide any testable evidence, their 'knowledge' is not knowledge (by my definition), it's just beliefs formed on faith, they call 'knowledge'.
eg. Many Theists claim to 'know' we have free will and also (in direct contradiction) claim to 'know' everything happens according to their God's will. They clearly 'know' neither.
@TheHigherVoltage 1. It was a very tedious logical process that took me years to complete.
2. Howabout you go educate yourselves on the likes of Nietzsche, Sartre, Democritus, or Freud before you act as if you're such a brilliant philosopher. I can tell you with the utmost certainty that you, sir, are at best merely mediocre.
@EducateTroll "1. It was a very tedious logical process that took me years to complete."
All right, let's break it down then. What was the 'logical process' on which you discounted the possibility of multiple gods?
"2. Howabout you go educate yourselves....."
I've read up on several philosophers, and still study philosophy..and yep - I probably am, at best, mediocre. If you find a flaw in any of my logic or philosophy, point it out and explain why. I'd thank you for teaching me something.
@EducateTroll (CONT) "All we have are fragments of vases and the occasional scroll from that long ago. "
That's what I was told growing up. It's a lie for willful ignorance. Look into the evidence. You could spend lifetimes on what we've collected from that time and region alone.
@TheHigherVoltage 3. Matthew 24 - I just read it and see no lies, could you be more specific? Mark 16: 15-18 - I just read it and that's not necessarily a lie, either. You argue that all you have to do is believe in God/Jesus to be saved, but if you truly believe in God/Jesus you would follow his message and dedicate your life to him, would you not? He's referring to the saints who dedicated their lives to him. They healed the sick. Others tried to kill them, but often to no avail. The serpent
@TheHigherVoltage is probably an allusion back to genesis, so he's saying that those who truly believe in him will not sin, or at least resist it very well.
4. When did Jesus teach equality? Are you serious? Preaching about the beatitudes, preaching about the golden rule, preaching about loving others as you love yourself, preaching about what you do to the least of him you do to him.
5. I suppose that because I am looking for meaning in these texts, I could be putting it there. However you
@EducateTroll 4. OT biblegod was all about the 'chosen people' against evil non-believers who had to be either killed or converted according to biblegod's law. He ordered genocides and enslavement of 'virgin girls', as well as how and who else to make slaves. And even within 'the chosen people' OT biblegod was all about women as second class citizens and property. Biblegod even sets the price for fathers selling their daughters.
@TheHigherVoltage (CONT) 4. Then in the NT, Jesus says he did not come to change the law but to verify it - not one letter will change. He also uses slaves in parables. Later, Paul writes how slaves should be extra good and work extra hard when working for any Christian owners.
Meek inherent the earth? So the meek are not equal now...but if they just bow and pray (instead of actually doing anything) in life, somehow, magically, they'll get to rule with inequality.
@TheHigherVoltage 4. What verses talk about selling women? What verses talk about genocide (other than the one that we discussed already)
6. Stop telling me to "read my bible" it isn't my bible, I'm just trying to defend it properly from the barrage of mediocre attacks you seem so good at producing.
@TheHigherVoltage 3. It wasn't recorded until decades after because the apostles believed that when Jesus said to wait for his second coming it was merely a matter of 20 or 30 so years, not thousands, and since writing the whole gospels would have been very difficult back then (quill and ink, parchment, few people were literate, etc.), they really had no reason to if he was going to return soon.They decided that they should record it though when they came close to dying in order to pass it down.
right, god wouldn't make miracles for rats because humans are far more stupider than rats who are not bothered with where there going when they die. let me be born as a rat if reincarnation is real. i'm an odinist by the way.
Some atheists seem to contort the English language just as badly as mendacious politicians. Atheism, by definition, is the disbelief in God or Gods, and I think when most atheist hear "God," they have some kind of absurd monotheistic notion of God, it's never a panentheism or something like that. So, I don't understand when some atheists say, "My atheism doesn't mean I say there is no God, it simply means I don't believe." No god and disbelief in the existence of God seem to be synonymous to me.
@Hanahleia Let me see if I can help. Atheists, having no faith, only follow a scientific method to theorize about those concepts and dilemmas. Since there is no evidence of gods existence (except those that are not accepted by the scientifically method, being then not evidences at all), atheists think that god does not exists, thou it is a limited and temporal answer as are all answers that come from science. It is not a belief based logic, is a scientific based logic.
@fadechicobuarque1989 Yes, but this method of belief exposes an evidentialism. Evidentialism is the justification of a belief solely based on evidence. But I believe this to self-defeating, because if you believe something like evidentialism, then you've got to have evidence for Evidentialism, but when you investigate that further, you find it is just metaphysical nonsense, and therefore self-defeating. If an atheist says there is no God, and then says there might be one, he's not an atheist.
@Hanahleia No, they are atheist. Science infers that there is a infinitely small chance of literally anything. The thing is, when something has its existence chance so close to zero, you just call it not true – simple as that. We don’t use evidence to justify a pre-established idea, but we follow the evidence to arrive to a certain amount of truth. And if I am not using evidence to support a belief, then, using your logic, I would not be a evidentalist (is that how we write it?).
@fadechicobuarque1989 They are not "atheist," they would be better described as agnostic or as an agnostic atheist, because then that leaves open for the possibility of a God or Gods. An atheist, by definition, completely denies the existence of God or Gods through his or her disbelief.
@Hanahleia No, his disbelief is a product of the lack of evidence. The infinitely minimal possibility is part of the scientific method, not a belief, so he is still an atheist. An agnostic says it is impossible to know the truth about that matter, while atheism accepts the scientific truth (the not definitive one).
@fadechicobuarque1989 Well, as I said, that adheres to a self-defeating evidentialism which I don't think possesses any sense. You're describing an agnostic atheist, not an atheist. I'd suggest you look up "agnostic atheism."
It's funny how atheists always rely on the scientific method for "evidence," yet the person who founded the scientific method believed in God!
"Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God." - Francis Bacon
@Hanahleia An agnostic atheist is a impossibility, since one says you cannot infer the existence or non-existence of a god, while the other says there is no god (because there is no evidence). The first will always think that, but the second can have his opinion changed by evidence. Forgive my English, I am Brazilian.
@fadechicobuarque1989 Atheism is, by definition, is the disbelief in God or Gods, it has nothing to do with evidence, one could arrive to that conclusion purely by intuition. Perhaps you've been watching too much of The Atheist Experience that it has distorted your perspective on all of this. Again, I suggest you Google "agnostic atheism."
@Hanahleia Your definition of atheism is a simplification, atheism is to not have a belief and, in consequence, be completely driven by evidence, there is no intuition. I suggest you don’t google stuff, but read about them in encyclopedias and real books – not trying to be mean.
@Hanahleia The term you presented combined two ideas: the disbelief because god is unknowable (that came from agnosticism) and the one based on the lack of evidence (atheism). In no case there is the disbelief by intuition that you mentioned.
@fadechicobuarque1989 It is not a simplification, you could go to any encyclopedia or any dictionary, and you'll see that atheism is simply a lack of belief or denial of a deity or deities, it's got NOTHING to do with "evidence."
@Hanahleia Do a little research, ok. The dictionary gives you a quick definition, but try to go deeper, look for extensive articles on good encyclopedias, read atheists books now and then and you will see we are ALL about evidence – the idea is that it is better than to have a belief.
@fadechicobuarque1989 Well, I think contemporary atheism has twisted the definition around to include evidentialism. I've met atheists that don't give a hoot about atheism. What are you to say of them? Then, you have the apatheist, a type of atheism that could care less either way.
@Hanahleia Evidentialism is to say your belief is supported by evidence, while atheists claim to have no belief. Aphateism ignores the fact that not carrying for something does not stop you to have a position about a subject.” I don’t care, but if I think about it, I guess…”. It is another way of trying to dodge the question. But you are not a half-bad researcher and you understand that does not matter why the meaning changed, but what it is now, right?
@fadechicobuarque1989 I understand that atheism is a lack of belief, but I say evidentialism, because the atheist justifies his/her belief through evidence. That's evidentialism, and I believe evidentialism to be self-defeating as in the example I just gave. Yeah, I know you say, "Well many people are using it that way, so the meaning is changing." And I say, "Well many people are really fuckin’ stupid too, shall we just adopt all their standards?"
@Hanahleia How can you say that the lack of belief is a belief? Makes no sense. I have no belief to defend. And is not about the majority of users, it is about the accepted vernacular and meaning used in cult language.
@fadechicobuarque1989 You don't believe in science? You don't believe in Evidentialism? You seem to be a proponent of these very things, and these are the beliefs in which you are defending.
@Hanahleia No, I don’t and I am not. Science just showed itself to be more useful, practical and verifiable, I did not adopt it because of a belief (so I am not evidentialist also, because that assumes I have a belief to defend with my evidences, and I don't). I am just arguing my point of view, I swear they are changeable – one guy almost convinced me with the Ezekiel prophecy, but a little research stopped me. No. Belief. Here.
@Hanahleia No, I don’t and I am not. Science just showed itself to be more useful, practical and verifiable, I did not adopt it because of a belief (so I am not evidentialist also, because that assumes I have a belief to defend with my evidences, and I don't). I am just arguing my point of view, I swear they are changeable – one guy almost convinced me with the Ezekiel prophecy, but a little research stopped me. No. Belief. Here.
really appreciate this caller. I've heard him on a lot of episodes. He is a pretty simple guy, but very sincere and open minded enough to discuss and learn, and he just keeps calling in. I wish more Christians were like him. He may not be the smartest guy, but at least he is smart enough and honest enough to ask questions and actually listen to the answers and have his mind changed!
The only reason religion continues to survive is because there is not enough motivation in atheist people to individually question every theist and dissect their beliefs, alongside the complete illogical ignorant thoughts that possesses’ these people that seem to be the criteria for someone to become religious.
@ShroudedAurora something ive noticed with people in general is that some people live life more on feelings, how people say and do things. While others more on facts, and what is being said or done. Christians believe things off of how they feel, and how others in the group express positive feelings over religious topics. And see the negative feelings expressed with those who disagree.
Religion keeps one stupid. You know that is in the Bible - in so many words. I believe humans are spiritual creatures, but the system which dictate to this essense is a leech.
@miket1m Yes, because believing that your imaginary friend did it is so much more logical. Evidence and experiments and facts are illogical to you. If you ever find evidence for your god, then you can call atheists illogical. Until then, those who believe based on faith are the illogical.
sometimes it's like callers (and like-minded) try to argue that the harry potter books are historical records. their reasoning is that weird to me. and i'm not talking about this guy in particular, just... all of them. people can be so very weird.
That is Mark, AKA "donnie" from "you suck at photoshop" I think he is pulling your legs hehehe
proximoto 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I got BANNED from commenting by Atheist Experience SIMPLY for suggesting they tackle other religions like Judaism, and look into the racism and other immorality within the Jewish oral law.
That PROVES right there that they're NOT an atheist organization at all, rather simply an anti-Christian organization (and I'm not a Christian).
Because some of these hypocrites are ethnically Jewish (some of the hosts) they REFUSE to talk about the Jewish religion, so they're not proper atheists at all!
GnosticHumanist 3 days ago
Warning: fundamentalism and intelligence to not mix. It is folly to challenge hard core beliefs -- I have yet to see any fundamentalists be sold on science.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!! ALL gods are MYTH!
detroitboy65 5 days ago
I want you Tracie your amazing and dead on!
Horneyorphan 5 days ago
The Atheist Experience team are abunch of hypocrites; they don't want reasoned sensible discussion or debate; if you make any relevant point they end up blocking you; clearly they just want the fundie fruitcake calling who will only be aware of this idiotic reductive literalist extreme interpretation of the Bible; this is old hat; debated down the centuries; they offer nothing new, only extremism and become as the people they accuse
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
@no1hoopsman
Absolutely wrong.
They had multiple shows with Matt Slick from CARM. A pretty 'respected' apologist.
They've also taken several calls from several of youTubes top apologists. Including Kebane the Christian.
pandstar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pandstar My experience with them is that they block you if you are reasoned in any kind of interaction; unless they have someone they can make a clown of they don't want any intellectual correspondence at all. That is my experience
no1hoopsman 1 week ago
@no1hoopsman Finally somebody who agrees with me. This response board is populated with people that have the logic of an 8th grader.
EducateTroll 1 week ago
@EducateTroll I concur.
IfUrGivingIn 1 week ago
@no1hoopsman I have never heard a reasoned idea come from the mouth of a fundamentalist. What most religious people do not (cannot) embrace is the onus of proof. When one asserts veracity of a belief or theory, the onus is upon one to produce proofs. So, where is your proof? I will give you $1000 if you can scientifically verify any supernatural phenomena, including ANY gods. In 19.5 years of teaching, I have never had to pay out a dime.
detroitboy65 5 days ago
@detroitboy65 I agree; I've never heard a reasoned statement coming from a fundie either. I disagree with your view about religious people and the veracity of proof; there have been philosphers, theologians, scientists and all sorts of reasonable intelligent people who believe in a creative force or power or God. The theologians in the time of Augustine came to the view that creation was instant (Big Bang) not the literal 7 days as the fundie requires with this reductive literalism
no1hoopsman 5 days ago
@no1hoopsman Belief and intelligence are not always opposed; however, there is a no requisite for an intelligent person to make a reasoned, empirical argument where religious belief is concerned. Also, it has been noted that among the minority of scientists who are also believers, the substance of their belief is usually rather vanilla and vague. And you are dead wrong about scientists as any true scientist would never attempt to prove a negative as to do so is meaningless.
detroitboy65 5 days ago
@detroitboy65 There is also a very good set of clips with Dawkins and Fr George Coyne; a jesuit scientist, on YT. Dawkins excluded them from his TV show, precisely because they undermined his argument and didn't show the fundie fruitcake version he requires; fundamentalism is found in atheism as well I suggest
no1hoopsman 4 days ago
@no1hoopsman Augustine had no scientific basis for his creation postulation, and theologians, as a rule, are inherently illogical about supernatural belief. As before: rational thought and fundamentalism do not mix -- ever.
detroitboy65 5 days ago
@detroitboy65 It is wrong to include Augustine as a fundamentalist; that would say more asbout you than Augustine and would put the emphasis on your fundamentalist stance on religion. Super nature is a term used by cosmologists; they use terms like parallel worlds/ parallel universes, based on rational theories....where is the difference do you think ?
no1hoopsman 4 days ago
Tracie tore this caller a new one
Metal1998 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage "I wouldn't 'believe' that supernatural or natural. "Personal testimonies" are the worst form of evidence. Ask any cop."
The example I provided wasn't a personal testimony. In my hypothetical, it was a well documented fact including autopsy report and a dna match to make sure it was him.
Again, you dodged my question:
How would you know if God is behind this or if it's some other natural cause which hasn't yet been discovered?
IfUrGivingIn 1 week ago
Comment removed
IfUrGivingIn 1 week ago
Comment removed
IfUrGivingIn 1 week ago
@IfUrGivingIn But this is neither here nor there. If you're arguing for biblegod as a real God, he can easily give evidence for his existence. All he'd have to do is keep his promises.
According to Jesus, all who are baptized and believe gain superpowers - including healing people with a touch.
Tell me, if Jesus is real, why do we have hospitals and doctors? Why aren't Christians going to faith healers after a car accident?
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage 2. Also you argue that there is no proof of God, and you're correct that there isn't any physical proof of him. If there was we would all become overly dependent on him and not want to fix our own problems.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
2. Also you argue that there is no proof of God, and you're correct that there isn't any physical proof of him. If there was we would all become overly dependent on him and not want to fix our own problems.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll "Also you argue that there is no proof of God, and you're correct that there isn't any physical proof of him."
That's the problem with delusions - there's never any physical proof.
" If there was we would all become overly dependent on him and not want to fix our own problems."
Not only do you shoot the "have complete faith in God" in the foot, you completely subvert bible dogma : that even people who supposedly 'knew God' could still do their own thing. (ie. Adam and Eve.)
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
pwned
lesliekwan80 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
40 years old and never ever heard a good argument for God NEVER! There is no such thing people grow up!
doctorbuckner 1 month ago
40 years old and never ever heard a good argument for God NEVER! There is no such thing people grow up!
doctorbuckner 1 month ago
Tracie Harris <3
tjald84 1 month ago
now this is all on tv God help us
xrdxex 1 month ago
I thought at first that this guy was a prank caller, but I don't think so now and I feel deeply, deeply sad for him. He's obviously had only a passing experience with formal reasoning, and it really shows in how he defends his viewpoints.
I don't think he's an idiot, it's just that he missed out on the chance to figure things out for himself. I hope he took something helpful from the show; even if he doesn't ditch his theism, maybe he will at least become a more conscientious believer.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
this is what happens when a xtian caller don't want to say: "U GOT ME. I DON'T KNOW".
mcfunthomas 1 month ago
4:27
Check & Mate by default.
Love it when people say stuff like that.
Then you KNOW they are being the most honest with you and the argument is alot easier.
mdl222 1 month ago
That last bit "That was a good call" and "I appreciate the call" is what I imagine people do when they click the "like" button :p
FHomeBrew 1 month ago
I agree with the caller it seems like they completely understand what he's saying but are just being smart asses
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll Of course they understand what he is saying, the problem is he does not understand what he is saying. To have a conversation you have to be on the same level, that is why Tracie slow down the conversation a bit for him to catch up.
AmberTofu 1 month ago
@EducateTroll Adults completely understand a 6 year old when they discuss Santa Claus myths. Simply saying "You've been lied to and that's that." is smart ass. Asking questions to get the child to realize on their own that Santa is a myth, is smart...and far more caring to the child.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage No, you're wrong. First of all, let's ignore the whole Santa Claus analogy because it's stupid and you chose it specifically because it's an obvious lie, which you probably think Christianity is. Let's talk about the actual video. She's being a smart ass because she understands what he's trying to say, but acts as if she doesn't. She uses mediocre questions to "prove him wrong" and he just isn't able to defend his point properly against her barrage of mediocrity.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll "an obvious lie, which you probably think Christianity is."
Christianity tells as many lies as all the other myth-based god cults, or the Santa Claus myths for that matter.
She asked questions that intellectually honest people ask. If the caller had of asked these questions himself with intellectual integrity, before declaring faith they were true, he wouldn't be defending them.
She was pointing out the logical inconsistances and errors in the caller's thinking that he skipped
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Those are not questions that intellectual people ask, because a miracle is not something that depends on mere statistics. It does not matter if something is extremely likely to happen or extremely unlikely to happen. What makes a miracle a miracle is divine intervention. Those two idiots failed to see that.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll According to the bible, miracles are magic - severed ears being reattached, every first born in a city being killed by angels, a whole graveyard of dead people walking around the town, talking donkeys, seas being split - and trees wilting from a word.
Like all godcult religions, Christianity is snake oil salesmen techniques, unsubstantiated stories and placebo effects.
Why aren't Christians feeding the poor by multiplying fish and bread with magic like Jesus said they could?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage No shit miracles are magic why does that matter? Where did you get the whole graveyard of dead people and the talking donkey parts from? 1. Where did Jesus say that they could do that? 2. Even if he did say so, maybe we can't anymore because we don't need to, we're just too gluttonous. We have the largest obesity percentage here in America, yet there's people in Africa starving to death. I'm not a Christian I just feel the need to defend their point accurately.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll You're not a Christian...you just feel the need to defend their point accurately...but have never read the bible.
How could you possibly defend something accurately, if you haven't even read the book it's based on?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Why do you say I've never read the bible? And you didn't counter the points I made.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll "Where did you get the whole graveyard of dead people "
The gospels. As the story goes, a whole cemetary of dead people rose with Jesus to walk around town and talk with people...funny how this amazing, earth shattering event isn't recorded until decades after. Almost like it was just made up.
" and the talking donkey parts " Look up the fable of Balaam in the bible.
Not knowing these stories are from the bible, it seems likely you've never read it.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 1. You never refuted my other points so I assume that I won those particular arguments.
2. Okay we must have read different versions of the bible because I have never read about a whole cemetery of dead people rising or the fable of Balaam, but I just read the fable of Balaam and it said that the angel occupied the Donkey's mouth because the man riding it kept beating it for not going away from the pillar of light supposed to be God
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll 1. What other points? 2. Read the gospels. After Jesus supposedly rose from the dead, a shitload of people supposedly rose from the dead too. 3. Jesus did say everything (that would include his coming back for judgement day) would happen within the lives of those around him. Go figure. Jesus lied again.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 1. The miracle comments
2. I think that's referring to Jesus raising all of the souls in limbo up into heaven, I could be wrong though. Could you point out what verse it talks about that in?
3. What verse did he say that in? And you implied he has lied before; where?
4. I know this seems like a cop-out, but even if you don't believe that Jesus was Christ you cannot argue that he was millenia ahead of his time as far as his teachings of equality go.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll 1. Your comment was "What makes a miracle a miracle is divine intervention." which is moot.
If that's the only stipulation to define 'miracle', everything and nothing is a miracle. I spilled my coffee! It's a miracle! I just cured a whole hospital of cancer patients by breathing on them...but it's not a miracle.
Unless a definition is precise, it's useless.
What Tracie did was prod the caller to define miracle further, until it actually made sense...which it never did.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 1. What do you mean everything and nothing is a miracle? I'm trying to point out that what makes a miracle a miracle is something that God intervenes in that would not have normally happened. I think that you're saying something like there's no way to physically tell that a miracle is a miracle? You're right there isn't, but so what? He was forced to "define" the miracle further, except it isn't a percentage that makes a miracle a miracle, like I said.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll "I think that you're saying something like there's no way to physically tell that a miracle is a miracle?" By your definition, there isn't.
" You're right there isn't, but so what?" Then the word is useless and pointless.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage By my definition? That's the only logical definition. Why is the word "useless and pointless"?
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll (CONT)
2. Matthew 27:52-53.
3. Matthew 24:1-34. Another obvious Jesus lie : Mark 16:15-18.
4. huh?! When did Jesus teach equality?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 2. Again, that could be referring to raising up the saints from purgatory into heaven, but let's suppose that it isn't. You're right, it's extremely unlikely, but logically if Jesus was God, he could have done something like that. And how do you know that there's no evidence for that? All we have are fragments of vases and the occasional scroll from that long ago. Maybe people did write about it, but it's been lost to time.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll 2. "Again, that could be referring to raising up the saints from purgatory into heaven"
ok man, the verses are "52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Bodies of saints...breaking out of graves...go to visit people in the city. That's what the book says.
Why do you tell yourself (and me) it could say something else?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 2. I'm not saying I'm right, because I'm probably wrong. I'm just saying that it's possible. So even if saints did break out of their graves and visit people in the city why is that proof that Jesus wasn't God?
2. Like what evidence? Can you give me a link or something?
5. Meekness does not equal inaction. Meekness is being humble. Jesus could be saying they would inherit the earth after the rapture.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll 2. Statements in any book are proof of anything. They are assertions.
2/b. You could start with 'Near Eastern archaeology' and work from there.
4. why did you not respond to my comments countering your 'equality in the bible' claim?
5. My point was that the childish promise reinforces inequality.
"6. Stop telling me to "read my bible" it isn't my bible, I'm just trying to defend it properly --" Stop. You can't defend anything properly without knowing it.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 2. Okay I'll take your word for it
4. Jesus did not say that, people say that he came to verify it. Where did Paul write that? And I already talked about the meek beatitude.
5. What are you talking about? Inequality (the type that I'm referring to and that you implied) is the basis of a good society. Rich people give to the poor, people give kindness to those who don't deserve it. Generosity (or inequality in a way) is good.
6. How about you shut the fuck up you arrogant cunt
EducateTroll 4 weeks ago
@EducateTroll 2. Don't take my word for it - think about it : the Illiad was revered as 'truth about the Gods' for centuries. Is it? Are the Vedas true just because people wrote them over thousands of years? How about the Quran? Or Harry Potter?
4. According to the bible, it's all biblegod's words - the chosen people, the orders for slavery, treating women as property, etc. were all stated in the OT and given the nod by the NT.
TheHigherVoltage 4 weeks ago
@EducateTroll 5. Inequality (not treating everyone equally) is not wealth disparity. Examples of inequality is slavery...treating women like shit...demanding some people must be favored over others.
6. How about you actually learn what the fuck you're talking about before attempting to 'properly defend it'? What else do you attempt to defend without knowing wtf you're talking about?
TheHigherVoltage 4 weeks ago
@EducateTroll More specifically, what the fuck is your position? You claim you're not a Christian. You claim the bible is not your book. Yet, here you are defending it as if you, are and it is.
You clearly haven't read the whole bible, yet claim to be 'properly defending it'. And have the balls to call me 'an arrogant cunt' for pointing out your uninformed approach.
So what's the deal here? Are you a Christian who's lying? Or an mentally defective non-believer?
TheHigherVoltage 4 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage "EducateTroll" you should have read his account name bro.
cbfd234 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage Okay fine, you want to know my position? I'm a theist. I do not subscribe to any particular religion, however I believe that there is a benevolent God which transcends humanity. I have not read the whole bible, you're right. You want to get down to the nitty-gritty, then? Why don't you tell me what you believe in and if it in anyway contradicts what I believe in I will fucking destroy your childish claims using my untouchable logic.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll untouchable logic? Tell me, what 'logical steps' did you take in determining there's only one god and not many? What logical steps did you take to conclude that this one god is benevolent?
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage What logical steps? Are you joking me? What logical steps did you take to disprove God?
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll "What logical steps did you take to disprove God?"
If we're going to go down this road, our conversation will have to be specific and precise. So specifically, what God/Godconcept are you referring to?
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll As for me, I don't deal in 'beliefs'. To say "I believe" means nothing - children believe in Santa. I only care about knowledge that's verifiably accurate.
With regards to the topic at hand : I know there's a possibility of several, one, or no Creator(s). I know the bible is as (verifiably) fiction as the quran, the vedas the illiad, and Star Wars.
I know that (religious) faith/belief is as illogical and intellectually dishonest as saying "I like to tell myself".
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage How do you know that the bible the quran, the illiad, and star wars are fake?
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll "How do you know that the bible the quran, the illiad, and star wars are fake?"
Once again, to have this conversation requires specifics and precision. If you're serious about your question, pick one : the bible, the quran, the illiad or star wars.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll I'm curious...if you haven't read the whole bible, and I assume you haven't read much of any other self-professed 'words from God(s)', (like the quran, the vedas, the pyramid texts, or any other the other thousands of surviving and still used 'Holy Books'), on what grounds do you claim belief? Faith?
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage 1. I guess I need to be more specific in my beliefs. I believe that there is some form of supernatural entity(s) and some form of "heaven."
2. You only care about knowledge that is verifiably accurate? It sounds to me like you believe only in things that you can physically touch or see.
3. So it sounds to me like you believe only in science per say, is that correct?
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll 1. And do you believe in a criteria to get to this heaven?
2. Once again, I don't deal in 'beliefs'. If it can't be tested, 'belief' is just playing make believe.
3. I recognize the scientific method as being the best road to figuring out the truth we've figured out so far. However, just because someone says 'science', doesn't mean I 'believe' it.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage 1. No, I have a more deterministic viewpoint. However there could be a criteria if we really do have free will. Maybe in the next life we will be merely spirits, and thus not have bodily desires to control our will and will be judged based upon our decisions there.
2. If it can't be tested? How do you test free will, freedom, good, evil? They are concepts, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Knowledge isn't merely physical
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll 2. 'Knowledge', in my vocabulary, is testable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, irrefutable facts. Anything less than 'knowledge' contains degrees of uncertainty, and is at best an educated guess, at worse, delusion.
"How do you test free will, freedom, good, evil?" all these concepts are fluid, and vary based on definitions, perceptions and perspectives. I'd need a precise definition.
"... that doesn't mean they don't exist." Agreed. It also doesn't mean they do exist.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage 2. "all these concepts are fluid, and vary based on definitions, perceptions, and perspectives." No they do not. You could argue the same thing for anything in the whole world. Everybody in the world knows the meaning of freedom. Every culture to ever exist has had laws about killing and stealing.
"It also doesn't mean they do exist." It seems like you only see knowledge as being physical. Just the fact that we are able to discuss these concepts means that they exist.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll "Everybody in the world knows the meaning of freedom."
No, they do not. Some people claim freedom is the ability to believe what you want (secularism). Other people claim freedom is only even possible if you believe exactly as they do. (Evangelical Christians)
Good and evil are also fluid concepts, and based on perspective. I think eternal torture is evil. Many people call it a good thing.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage I'm talking about physical freedom not spiritual freedom.
2. Good and evil are not based on perspectives. Nobody would agree that eternal torture is a good thing. I'm sure you could find somebody that does believe that, but he's probably just fucking crazy. Like I said, every single culture has had some form of moral system and they were all based upon the same moral ground.
You didn't address my other points either.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll "I'm talking about physical freedom"
Once again, subjective. Some people define physical freedom as the ability to kill people for sport. Others define physical freedom as limited by not hurting anyone.
"Good and evil are not based on perspectives." Yes, they are.
eg. Is the death penalty good or bad?
"Nobody would agree that eternal torture is a good thing."
Ask a Christian or Muslim. If they back their fairy tales, they'll say it's not only good, it's just.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage Yes you're right that some parts of them are subjective, but in order for two people to even debate about good and evil they have to have some form of common moral ground, which is inherent in all of us.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll " in order for two people to even debate about good and evil they have to have some form of common moral ground, which is inherent in all of us."
Then define this common moral ground.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll (CONT) What points didn't I address? I thought I've been addressing them all.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage The points about how just the fact that we are able to understand a concept means that it exists on some plane or another, about how there is more than mere scientific knowledge, and how we would all become too dependent on God if he openly showed his existence.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll "The points about how just the fact that we are able to understand a concept means that it exists on some plane or another"
That's delusional. I can understand the concept of tiny elves living in each cell of my body, and as they get old, the cell gets old. That doesn't mean there's tiny elves in any cell controlling aging, in any plane of existence.
Just because someone can understand a concept, doesn't make it true or real - anywhere.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll "and how we would all become too dependent on God if he openly showed his existence."
Once again, believers are to be 100% dependent on their myth gods - without proof.
For biblegod, there's Adam and Eve, the Isrealites at the base of the mount worshiping the Golden Calf, and even most of the apostle stories not having complete trust in Jesus - that refutes your statement.
The "God won't show himself because it would destroy free will" argument is an excuse for believing a lie.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage How can God show himself so that we can easily identify him?
Existence itself? - We say existence is either uncaused or has infinite time.
Miracles? - We appeal to any other answer available; nature, aliens, human hallucinations, medical conditions etc.
Freewill? - The theory of existence being a massive equation in which we are a variable.
I think god has already shown itself...
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn So...God has shown himself...so that we can easily identify him...by hiding in circumstantial arguments that can be explained many other different ways?
If any God(s) wanted us to know of their existence, they'd know exactly how to get us that message crystal clear.
It would not take fantastical stories, leaps of faith, and the 'fill in the blanks with wishful thinking' that every godcult on the planet sells as 'the REAL God(s)!'.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage "by hiding in circumstantial arguments that can be explained many other different ways?"
That sentence doesn't make sense and is not what I said.
"If any God(s) wanted us to know of their existence, they'd know exactly how to get us that message crystal clear."
How? If you look at things with a naturalistic perception, then your explanation will always be naturalistic.
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn What I said made sense, re-read it.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that can be explained many ways. "there's presents under the tree - evidence Santa is real!"
Then there's valid evidence that can only be explained one way....and verified to be the result of that one way. "The bible says all who are baptized and believe can lay on hands. I am baptized and believe and have cured 3 full hospitals. Come with me and watch as I cure another full hospital." Is valid evidence.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage "What I said made sense, re-read it."
I re-read it, it still didn't make sense. How can a valid argument be circumstantial?
You still didn't answer my question. How can God get his message across crystal clear that he exists if we interpret all facts with a naturalistic perception?
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn I'll use an example : if you find presents under the tree, would you also claim that's evidence for Santa? Or would you realize that's circumstantial evidence...as there's other explanations...so it's not valid evidence for Santa?
"How can God get his message across crystal clear that he exists..."
Your God can't figure that out?
"... if we interpret all facts with a naturalistic perception?"
Assigning supernatural interpretations is playing make believe.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn I find it interesting that you claim to see supernatural evidence for your God in the natural...then imply that's all he can do.
Why can't a supernatural God provide supernatural evidence? According to the godmyths you believe, you're promised all kinds of supernatural powers. All who are baptized and believe are suppose to be able to drink deadly poisons without being harmed, heal the sick with a touch, and perform supernatural feats.
Where's your super powers?
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage Genius, you answered your own question. So God doesn't exist because:
"Why can't a supernatural God provide supernatural evidence?"
"Assigning supernatural interpretations is playing make believe."
Nice circular reasoning.
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn Assigning a supernatural interpretation is not the same as verifying supernatural evidence.
Assigning a supernatural interpretation : I got over the flu, and I prayed to Jesus, so Jesus did it.
Validating supernatural evidence : a voice in sky says "I am God and am eliminating cancer" - and all traces of cancer vanish from our planet immediately..
If you can't see how these are 2 totally different things, it's no wonder you believe in fairy tales :/
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage "Assigning a supernatural interpretation is not the same as verifying supernatural evidence."
I never said they're the same.
Supernatural evidence cannot exist without a supernatural interpretation.
If you can't see why, then it's no wonder you contradicted yourself.
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn You asked me what evidence could real God(s) give to prove their existence. I said supernatural evidence.
Does your church have those Holy Spirit flames that appear above everyone's head? Bible stories have it happening several times - a sign that the Holy Spirit was there. Where's your Holy Spirit flame? How about speaking in different languages? Can you actually do this? Or does your 'speaking in tongues' ability equate to gibberish?
Where's the voodoo your God promises?
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage How do you know all the examples of "supernatural evidence" you have just proposed couldn't be explained naturally?
What I'm getting at is, how do you differentiate between a fact which has supernatural origins and a fact that has unknown natural origins?
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn Simple question for you :
If everyone on the planet suddenly started speaking and understanding the same language, would you understand that as supernatural? Or would be the only person on the planet that would claim there must be a natural explanation?
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage "Or would be the only person on the planet that would claim there must be a natural explanation?"
LOL appeal to a hypothetical population, nice.
"If everyone on the planet suddenly started speaking and understanding the same language, would you understand that as supernatural?"
How would you rule out a natural explanation that is currently unbeknownst to us?
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn This is what it boils down to : If God(s) cannot figure out how to reveal themselves in a way that we would all know for sure that they are God(s) ---- then they are incompetent or do not exist in the first place.
And this is neither here nor there. The bible, like all godcult books, promise superpowers to believers. Jesus goes so far as to promise all who are baptized and believe will gain specific super powers, including laying on hands.
Where's your magic powers?
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage You didn't answer my qurestion. I'll try again:
How can you tell the difference between something which would have a supernatural cause and something with an unknown natural cause?
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn I found myself wondering how supernatural God(s) could reveal their existence, and as far as your God is concerned, it'd be as easy as changing what his mythology claims he's done.
According to the Babel story, biblegod was angry at humans for building a tower (interestingly enough, we've got skyscrapers now and no magic sky daddy destroying them). In any event, as part of 'the punishment', biblegod magically made everyone speak different languages.
Have Jebus undo that.
TheHigherVoltage 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHigherVoltage "According to the Babel story, biblegod was angry at humans for building a tower (interestingly enough, we've got skyscrapers now and no magic sky daddy destroying them). In any event, as part of 'the punishment', biblegod magically made everyone speak different languages.
Have Jebus undo that."
If Jesus undid that, a naturalist could say "we don't know but because we don't know we shouldn't say god did it."
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@IfUrGivingIn
oh darn. Me and like 6.5 billion people either didn't see it it or accidentliy looked away.
Oh and don't say we look away on purpose.
ASo5one 2 weeks ago
@ASo5one "Me and like 6.5 billion people either didn't see it it or accidentliy looked away."
I can excuse you and your "6.5 billion people" not hearing about miracles but you must have looked away on purpose in regards to existence and freewill.
IfUrGivingIn 2 weeks ago
@EducateTroll "Like I said, every single culture has had some form of moral system and they were all based upon the same moral ground."
Not even close. Cannibalism, human sacrifices, slavery, keeping women as property, guilty until proven innocent/innocent until proven guilty, the rich have the right to kill serfs, the rich don't have the right to kill serfs.
Morality is formed by individual societies. Any common ground is from employing the same reasoning...not some supernatural base.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll "Just the fact that we are able to discuss these concepts means that they exist."
So, according to you, discussing the concept of invisible elephants, proves they exist?
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll (CONT) "Knowledge isn't merely physical"
By my definition it is.
ex. Theists often claim to 'know' things about God(s). However, as they cannot provide any testable evidence, their 'knowledge' is not knowledge (by my definition), it's just beliefs formed on faith, they call 'knowledge'.
eg. Many Theists claim to 'know' we have free will and also (in direct contradiction) claim to 'know' everything happens according to their God's will. They clearly 'know' neither.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@TheHigherVoltage 1. It was a very tedious logical process that took me years to complete.
2. Howabout you go educate yourselves on the likes of Nietzsche, Sartre, Democritus, or Freud before you act as if you're such a brilliant philosopher. I can tell you with the utmost certainty that you, sir, are at best merely mediocre.
EducateTroll 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EducateTroll "1. It was a very tedious logical process that took me years to complete."
All right, let's break it down then. What was the 'logical process' on which you discounted the possibility of multiple gods?
"2. Howabout you go educate yourselves....."
I've read up on several philosophers, and still study philosophy..and yep - I probably am, at best, mediocre. If you find a flaw in any of my logic or philosophy, point it out and explain why. I'd thank you for teaching me something.
TheHigherVoltage 3 weeks ago
@EducateTroll (CONT) "All we have are fragments of vases and the occasional scroll from that long ago. "
That's what I was told growing up. It's a lie for willful ignorance. Look into the evidence. You could spend lifetimes on what we've collected from that time and region alone.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 3. Matthew 24 - I just read it and see no lies, could you be more specific? Mark 16: 15-18 - I just read it and that's not necessarily a lie, either. You argue that all you have to do is believe in God/Jesus to be saved, but if you truly believe in God/Jesus you would follow his message and dedicate your life to him, would you not? He's referring to the saints who dedicated their lives to him. They healed the sick. Others tried to kill them, but often to no avail. The serpent
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage is probably an allusion back to genesis, so he's saying that those who truly believe in him will not sin, or at least resist it very well.
4. When did Jesus teach equality? Are you serious? Preaching about the beatitudes, preaching about the golden rule, preaching about loving others as you love yourself, preaching about what you do to the least of him you do to him.
5. I suppose that because I am looking for meaning in these texts, I could be putting it there. However you
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@EducateTroll 4. OT biblegod was all about the 'chosen people' against evil non-believers who had to be either killed or converted according to biblegod's law. He ordered genocides and enslavement of 'virgin girls', as well as how and who else to make slaves. And even within 'the chosen people' OT biblegod was all about women as second class citizens and property. Biblegod even sets the price for fathers selling their daughters.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage (CONT) 4. Then in the NT, Jesus says he did not come to change the law but to verify it - not one letter will change. He also uses slaves in parables. Later, Paul writes how slaves should be extra good and work extra hard when working for any Christian owners.
Meek inherent the earth? So the meek are not equal now...but if they just bow and pray (instead of actually doing anything) in life, somehow, magically, they'll get to rule with inequality.
Read your bible.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 4. What verses talk about selling women? What verses talk about genocide (other than the one that we discussed already)
6. Stop telling me to "read my bible" it isn't my bible, I'm just trying to defend it properly from the barrage of mediocre attacks you seem so good at producing.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage are doing the exact opposite, so even if there is meaning in the texts you will not find it.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage 3. It wasn't recorded until decades after because the apostles believed that when Jesus said to wait for his second coming it was merely a matter of 20 or 30 so years, not thousands, and since writing the whole gospels would have been very difficult back then (quill and ink, parchment, few people were literate, etc.), they really had no reason to if he was going to return soon.They decided that they should record it though when they came close to dying in order to pass it down.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage So basically she's either a smart ass or a mediocre atheist.
EducateTroll 1 month ago
he was a nice guy. aww :)
moralreef 1 month ago
right, god wouldn't make miracles for rats because humans are far more stupider than rats who are not bothered with where there going when they die. let me be born as a rat if reincarnation is real. i'm an odinist by the way.
kananga309 1 month ago
Some atheists seem to contort the English language just as badly as mendacious politicians. Atheism, by definition, is the disbelief in God or Gods, and I think when most atheist hear "God," they have some kind of absurd monotheistic notion of God, it's never a panentheism or something like that. So, I don't understand when some atheists say, "My atheism doesn't mean I say there is no God, it simply means I don't believe." No god and disbelief in the existence of God seem to be synonymous to me.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia Let me see if I can help. Atheists, having no faith, only follow a scientific method to theorize about those concepts and dilemmas. Since there is no evidence of gods existence (except those that are not accepted by the scientifically method, being then not evidences at all), atheists think that god does not exists, thou it is a limited and temporal answer as are all answers that come from science. It is not a belief based logic, is a scientific based logic.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@Hanahleia I meant scientific method– I am Brazilian writing in English in YouTube, so…
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 Yes, but this method of belief exposes an evidentialism. Evidentialism is the justification of a belief solely based on evidence. But I believe this to self-defeating, because if you believe something like evidentialism, then you've got to have evidence for Evidentialism, but when you investigate that further, you find it is just metaphysical nonsense, and therefore self-defeating. If an atheist says there is no God, and then says there might be one, he's not an atheist.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia No, they are atheist. Science infers that there is a infinitely small chance of literally anything. The thing is, when something has its existence chance so close to zero, you just call it not true – simple as that. We don’t use evidence to justify a pre-established idea, but we follow the evidence to arrive to a certain amount of truth. And if I am not using evidence to support a belief, then, using your logic, I would not be a evidentalist (is that how we write it?).
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 They are not "atheist," they would be better described as agnostic or as an agnostic atheist, because then that leaves open for the possibility of a God or Gods. An atheist, by definition, completely denies the existence of God or Gods through his or her disbelief.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia No, his disbelief is a product of the lack of evidence. The infinitely minimal possibility is part of the scientific method, not a belief, so he is still an atheist. An agnostic says it is impossible to know the truth about that matter, while atheism accepts the scientific truth (the not definitive one).
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fadechicobuarque1989 Well, as I said, that adheres to a self-defeating evidentialism which I don't think possesses any sense. You're describing an agnostic atheist, not an atheist. I'd suggest you look up "agnostic atheism."
It's funny how atheists always rely on the scientific method for "evidence," yet the person who founded the scientific method believed in God!
"Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God." - Francis Bacon
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia An agnostic atheist is a impossibility, since one says you cannot infer the existence or non-existence of a god, while the other says there is no god (because there is no evidence). The first will always think that, but the second can have his opinion changed by evidence. Forgive my English, I am Brazilian.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 Atheism is, by definition, is the disbelief in God or Gods, it has nothing to do with evidence, one could arrive to that conclusion purely by intuition. Perhaps you've been watching too much of The Atheist Experience that it has distorted your perspective on all of this. Again, I suggest you Google "agnostic atheism."
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia Your definition of atheism is a simplification, atheism is to not have a belief and, in consequence, be completely driven by evidence, there is no intuition. I suggest you don’t google stuff, but read about them in encyclopedias and real books – not trying to be mean.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@Hanahleia The term you presented combined two ideas: the disbelief because god is unknowable (that came from agnosticism) and the one based on the lack of evidence (atheism). In no case there is the disbelief by intuition that you mentioned.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 It is not a simplification, you could go to any encyclopedia or any dictionary, and you'll see that atheism is simply a lack of belief or denial of a deity or deities, it's got NOTHING to do with "evidence."
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia Do a little research, ok. The dictionary gives you a quick definition, but try to go deeper, look for extensive articles on good encyclopedias, read atheists books now and then and you will see we are ALL about evidence – the idea is that it is better than to have a belief.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 Well, I think contemporary atheism has twisted the definition around to include evidentialism. I've met atheists that don't give a hoot about atheism. What are you to say of them? Then, you have the apatheist, a type of atheism that could care less either way.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia Evidentialism is to say your belief is supported by evidence, while atheists claim to have no belief. Aphateism ignores the fact that not carrying for something does not stop you to have a position about a subject.” I don’t care, but if I think about it, I guess…”. It is another way of trying to dodge the question. But you are not a half-bad researcher and you understand that does not matter why the meaning changed, but what it is now, right?
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 I understand that atheism is a lack of belief, but I say evidentialism, because the atheist justifies his/her belief through evidence. That's evidentialism, and I believe evidentialism to be self-defeating as in the example I just gave. Yeah, I know you say, "Well many people are using it that way, so the meaning is changing." And I say, "Well many people are really fuckin’ stupid too, shall we just adopt all their standards?"
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia How can you say that the lack of belief is a belief? Makes no sense. I have no belief to defend. And is not about the majority of users, it is about the accepted vernacular and meaning used in cult language.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@fadechicobuarque1989 You don't believe in science? You don't believe in Evidentialism? You seem to be a proponent of these very things, and these are the beliefs in which you are defending.
Hanahleia 1 month ago
@Hanahleia No, I don’t and I am not. Science just showed itself to be more useful, practical and verifiable, I did not adopt it because of a belief (so I am not evidentialist also, because that assumes I have a belief to defend with my evidences, and I don't). I am just arguing my point of view, I swear they are changeable – one guy almost convinced me with the Ezekiel prophecy, but a little research stopped me. No. Belief. Here.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hanahleia No, I don’t and I am not. Science just showed itself to be more useful, practical and verifiable, I did not adopt it because of a belief (so I am not evidentialist also, because that assumes I have a belief to defend with my evidences, and I don't). I am just arguing my point of view, I swear they are changeable – one guy almost convinced me with the Ezekiel prophecy, but a little research stopped me. No. Belief. Here.
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@Hanahleia I meant does not have a belief
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
@Hanahleia no I did not. Sorry man, I am not a English speaker
fadechicobuarque1989 1 month ago
really appreciate this caller. I've heard him on a lot of episodes. He is a pretty simple guy, but very sincere and open minded enough to discuss and learn, and he just keeps calling in. I wish more Christians were like him. He may not be the smartest guy, but at least he is smart enough and honest enough to ask questions and actually listen to the answers and have his mind changed!
apostatexp 1 month ago
@hyperschmizzle: LOOOOOOL
Steamsteam 1 month ago
Miracles for rats...LMAO...what a dumb ass! God's work, what the hell is that...god is fucked up, and his followers are even more so!
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 1 month ago
The only reason religion continues to survive is because there is not enough motivation in atheist people to individually question every theist and dissect their beliefs, alongside the complete illogical ignorant thoughts that possesses’ these people that seem to be the criteria for someone to become religious.
joetmobile7 1 month ago
OMFG, this guy makes me want to rip out my intestines and hang myself with them. How fucking retarded can you get -________-
ShroudedAurora 1 month ago
@ShroudedAurora something ive noticed with people in general is that some people live life more on feelings, how people say and do things. While others more on facts, and what is being said or done. Christians believe things off of how they feel, and how others in the group express positive feelings over religious topics. And see the negative feelings expressed with those who disagree.
SuLLyZorZ 1 month ago
@ShroudedAurora as retarded as faith leads them.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
I like these kind of callers :)
Rospandan 1 month ago
They're both beautiful.
expatriate40 1 month ago
Tracie is really hot.
WillyT3117 1 month ago
Miracles have a poisson distribution lol :p
FHomeBrew 2 months ago
Religion keeps one stupid. You know that is in the Bible - in so many words. I believe humans are spiritual creatures, but the system which dictate to this essense is a leech.
rabbitails 2 months ago
@miket1m Yes, because believing that your imaginary friend did it is so much more logical. Evidence and experiments and facts are illogical to you. If you ever find evidence for your god, then you can call atheists illogical. Until then, those who believe based on faith are the illogical.
shredder767 2 months ago
A miracle isn't a rare event. A miracle is something that cannot have a natural explanation. I don't believe in miracles.
mikelheron20 2 months ago
sometimes it's like callers (and like-minded) try to argue that the harry potter books are historical records. their reasoning is that weird to me. and i'm not talking about this guy in particular, just... all of them. people can be so very weird.
skorvskrov 2 months ago
9:46 she said doo doo, :P
joshuajamesthornton 2 months ago
Tracie and Jen, you're both smart as hell. Let this declaration live on forever in the intertubes!
MrShysterme 2 months ago
I love how Tracie argues from the point of logic. Very well spoken lady.
cutes22 2 months ago