when we find proof of that we produced by self will. Then it only proves some doctorine true. Manyly the bible. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Is he speaking of himself or the heavenly father.
Maybe pain but what really keeps them living if they hated life so much. Maybe getting something in living life is worth more than not live let alone believing in something, such as tommorow will be a better day. Last but not least. You can teach a person to read but you can't teach them common sense.
As far as Abraham attempting to kill his son in obediance.Its like saying Abraham lived but,"God" doesn't and how many people have you been able to ask about death after killing themselves or maybe someone who tried. They kept living life because of the pain they felt during the process or maybe life (which is probably the reason they tried to kill themselves in the first place.)
Some will think to themselves does it matter, maybe he did, there is proof. Where is the documentation. Is it authentic? HOW DOES IT HELP ME.... Does it serve or have a purpose. Does this educate, feed, pay, or heal me. Do I be a follower or a leader. IS HE SOMEONE OF EXAMPLE THAT WILL HELP ME ACCOMPLISH ANYTHINm was a lie. Tired of those who gave him his lifestyle.
Its do to reading and experiencing life on its terms that you come to this conclusion and although Penn lives but he died thousands of years ago and the world kept growing in intellect and you still lived. The question would be does and did PENN LIVE AND DO YOU BELIEVE (IN PENN).LOL.WOW. The pursuit of knowing or knowledge exhaust many in thought that they will never find the truth is intriguing to one who comes to find out that he/she doesn't have control over his/her own mind let alone life!!
That's very well said. As of right now we have no idea just what started everything, and we may never. All we can ever hope for is tentative grasps of the truth as we reveal them by science. As far as belief goes, I do have qualms about the method of belief that theists use. Theirs is too concrete to ever be useful or adaptive in a world of ever changing challenges. While I do like thinking practical, I never want my conclusions to be *that* static.
Everyone looks at this point in Abrahams life and thinks that it wasnt right for God to do that and God is mean ect. BUT if you look PAST this point, you see that Abraham became the father of a nation and his seed would be as great as the stars. So God was testing Abrahams faith. You can also say there was no need for this but were a free spirit. We choose what we want to do. We dont have to do what God says. Abe coulda said nope but since he trusted God, he did and hince God spared isaac.
I think the response would be that God would never tell a person to kill his child. So if something is telling you to kill your child, you probably shouldn't do it. I don't believe in religion, only something higher than myself, a humble view of the world.
Ever read the story of Abraham and Isaac? Ever read Deuteronomy 21:18-21? I think it's great that you believe in something higher than yourself. THAT is something a god couldn't do.
Gen 22:1-14 KJV And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. [v. 2] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
The story in a nutshell - A man swears to go that the first thing to greet him after his battle he will sacrifice if he wins. His daughter greets him. This one doesn't end with God changing his mind, however. She's burn alive after she's allowed to 'morn her virginity'.
@Edubbplate Why would God never tell a person to kill their child? If you believe that, then you believe in a set of moral values that trump even God's will. If God is everything, then whatever he says is moral and good, is. You believe in a higher power than God Himself (ie. your own moral values), and you're picking and choosing what to believe about Him based on pre-conceived notions. Ergo, you don't really believe in God.
That almost sounds like "having your cake and eating it too". I wouldn't listen to any voice in my head, or consider any notion I have as a message from another entity. If I did I would seek professional help. If some being wants to communicate to me, it can do it in a way that's undeniable and verifiable. Anyone could walk up to one stranger on the street and then go to another stranger to verify the conversation. "Did you hear what that guy said". If a man can do it, so can a God.
And if a god revealed itself to me, and told me to kill a child (don't have any myself), then I would stick 'it' the finger and tell 'it' to go and mind 'its' own business.
Im and atheist 100%. I still dont understand how people can buy the whole religion thing hook, line, and sinker without any evidence whatsoever. If I go around claiming to be talking to the tree spirits I get put in the padded room for being crazy. If I go around claiming to be talking to the Holy Spirit and the invisible man on the sky, I get a pat on the back and told what a good person I am.
I'm not a fan of these terms and. I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't like the question at the end of this video. It's not a yes and no. A person who has strong belief in their god more then likely would see that it is impossible for their god to ever ask them such a thing. It would be like asking me if my brother gave birth to a child would I support him. Can't answer, because I know it's impossible for men to give birth. I see what he is saying, just not a question.
Abraham was ready to cut his son's throat. Yahweh was a fucking asshole for commanding that and Abraham was a schizophrenic homicidal daddio for believing that Yahweh commanded it. What a load of bullshit. Religion in all it's ways shapes and forms should be banned and outlawed.
You people do realize that Roman Catholics believed if you weren't perfect you'd go to hell but nowadays people who SAY they're strict Christians don't even think about that fact. In fact Christianity was the first religion to really even give one about life after death. All its predecessors didn't WANT to die at all to be honest and focused more on the living world-much more healthy in my opinion.
Wrong. Nihilist means to believe that life has no meaning behind it. Or more precisely, that we have nothing to strive for or we can't achieve greater. It doesn't mean atheist or agnostic.
Not that I approve labeling but....
Atheist-Does not believe in deities
Agnostic-Uncertainty of what created everything
Nihilist-Belief that nothing has any meaning or purpose
See, a nihilist can believe that a god created the universe, but just out of will, not foresight.
So glad he's clearing this up. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. If you don't proactively believe in the classical god or gods (my own definition to keep it tidy), then you are an atheist. This is a completely separate issue as to whether it is knowable or not.
God is love. A loving God would not have anyone kill. Thou shall not kill. Of course abraham was tested to see if his faith was strong enough to kill his son. But God stopped him. All religions agree on that. God is Love. If you believe in Love. You believe in God. God bless ya penn.
You are missing a key point in that horrible tale. Abraham obviously thought that it was in the character of his god to request such a sacrififce. For following that god, the character of Abraham was immoral. For being a deity that made such a request and needed to test loyalty in such a horrific manner god is not moral.
to fully understand the significance of this story, you must honestly ask yourself this question: do you think that the act of deception is an act of love? your answer should be no. perhaps you're saying ''well, it's in abe's best interest.'' but no, it was in god's own selfish interest that he did this. not only did he deceive abraham, but he did so under the guise that abe would have to sacrifice his own son. how would you feel if a friend told you to do this to your child, what would you say?
What "God" Would I Worship? I'd like to believe Thor was real for 2 reasons - he is a great warrior and has a hammer. And as the bible says, Jesus was nailed to the cross... Thor = EPIC WIN. LOL! XD
A believer would not answer the question Penn poses at the end of this clip with a yes or no. He or she would rather say that God would never, ever, ever ask you to do such an evil thing.
Of course this worshipper of God would forget the wonderful, feel-good story of God asking Abe to do just that to his only son Isaac. But that's a great story from the Bible about how awesome God is and doesn't pertain to real life (unless we're talking about how it proves dinosaurs and man co-existed).
Also let me add that agnosticism takes the position not only that "I don't know whether or not god exists," but that it isn't POSSIBLE to prove that God does or does not exist, even theoretically. But maybe I'm just speaking for myself.
If one were omniscient it would be possible to know god isn't real. Theists actually have an easier time of it, since all they have to do is provide significant evidence and it would be easy to know that a god does exist, whereas disproving something requires knowledge of virtually everything.
You hit the nail on the head. For anything we can't perceive directly, the burden of proof is always on the person with the claim, no matter what you're talking about. A good example of this might be black holes. When they were first hypothesized, the scientific community demanded a whole range of evidence and investigation before accepting the theory, because black wholes can't be directly perceived. God can't be directly perceived either, so why place the burden of proof on non-believers?
Yes, you're right. I wasn't implying otherwise; merely that to objectively say "There is definitely NO god" you would need omniscience (IE, to know everything)
It doesn't mean we should believe in it in the interim and indeed it's wise not to until it's actually demonstrated to be real by those making the claims.
I look at it this way: in Science, we never, ever assume. You know what assuming does (It makes an...). So why should perceived beliefs be any different? Could you imagine the catastrophic events that would take place if we applied that sort of carelessness towards health sciences? We would assume that cancer is just repressed anger, or that HIV can be cured by having sex with a virgin. It's not only genes that are transmitted. Ideas are transmitted, too.
So I not only think that theists should be able to carry the burden of proof for the sake of a valid argument, but for the sake of belief. Every individual should carry the burden of proof every time they believe something. To not do so is not only a waste, but a fatal error.
i'd have to say, being a wiccan, i'm an agnostic theist.
there's no way for me to know, as penn has said, but i do believe there is and i adhere to what is doctrine. which luckily for me the only doctrine in wicca is the rede :)
I contend that we're both athiests, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. when you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."
A theist who will not kill their child on command might be less faithful theists, but still a theist. Theists don't obey a lot of commands, thank reason, but they still believe in their God or gods. Does weak will mean one does not believe? I don't think so, but it is telling that the faithful are the ones who would kill in the name of their God. Faith can be a very bad trait--it is only reason and evolved kindness that keeps us safe from the faithful.
i thought that agnosticism was that you didn't believe in a god but the idea of a god sounds good? and Atheism is that you deny the existence of god due to the fact that science and evolution have evidence.
Nope. In fact there are a lot of atheists who don't believe in god and wish there to be one. The wishing of a god has nothing to do with it. Its about whether you believe or not. Agnostics consider themselves fence sitters but since you don't believe in a god, then your an atheist. Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley who tried to put "atheism" a lighter way after being attacked by the church for his science. Still he couldn't escape the fact that he was an atheist.
I don't believe Jesus would ever tell me to kill my kid. I know you'll point out the story of Isac in the Bible, but Abraham didn't kill his son Isac and God never asked that of anyone again. So if I hear a voice tell me to kill my kid, I will go to the hospital because I am sane and something is seriously wrong.
Christianity = "The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a naked woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree" acid, its a hellava drug
What i find most incredible is that humans can actualy look at a full night of stars or the unfolding of a flower and go "meh, just a coincidence"
That's about as insane as thinking that it was all created by an anthropomorphic deity who got bored one week and decided to make a little world full of wars and terror that he could watch.
I infer that the universe is inherently intelligent, however I don't know enough about astronomy or abstract mathematics to be able to confirm the veracity of the Big Bang theory.
I call creativity and manifestation "God", both the sound and the silence are It, also Thou and also I (as in the I AM experienced by all sentience).
I can't give you a formula to describe it, I could point you to certain fields of quantum physics but I doubt that matters.
Oh I need to clarify on "God is not anthropomorphic". I was refering specificaly to religious convictions of personified deities.
A god with a personality is categoricaly an anthropomorphic projection.
I see these Gods as metaphors for the many facets of the human relationship to divinity, many of them personify different aspects of the human condition and also encapsulate cultural memes.
Viewed from a transpersonal perspective they have a meaningful archetypal significance.
I guess he's trying to draw a distinction between believing (just a leap of faith) vs. thinking. But I can't, in my personal life, draw this distinction. I don't KNOW if I believe in God because I can't say that I even remotely believe in anything until I can have evidence of it. But not having evidence of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So this distinction can't be right.
FALSE PENN. I watched 1 min. and then paused.The question is most certanly "is there a God?" The reason because as a Christian u have a prsonal relatnshp with the living God through JC. This relatnshp is supposed to be deeper, more real, more loving, and more important than any relatnshp u can have with another persn. If you get on ur knees and pray to God eryday, of corse he is real! To that I say pff, "is there a God?" Heck yes! I talkd to him ystrday! COME ON PENN NONE OF THIS SUBJECTIVE CRAP
I don't pay attention to any religion :) If there a god he will see that I'm doing my best trying to live and helping people. he/she not going to care if i'm worshiping him every Sunday.
not according to the bible he won't :p no matter how great a person you are, you will be sent to eternal torment in hell. harsh world isn't it?
That said, I completely agree with you and think that if there is a god (although I don't think there is) he would never punish people for not worshiping him every sunday, when the fact that most religious people are religious because their parents are.. If I grew up in a very religious home, I would probably be religious. fact.
Fuck vs. F.U.C.K.-Fornication Under Consent of the King.
What king? God and Lord are Sir-Names.
Theres a Gods many and a Lords many. Each God must have a name and each Lord must have a name also. DO YOU EXIST or Better yet are you something of great creation.
The Judeau-Christian god told Abraham to kill his son in the Old Testament. With the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, their god no longer requires sacrifice from his followers. The the Judeau Christian god doesn't ask for sacrifices anymore.
And, agrantus, if your going to attempt to insult me, please spell it right for fucks sake.
If this matters to nature. Is it possible that nature created an entity that can and is so seen and felt before and after death that so superior that other entities feel superiorly inferior and obsolete in character that its easy to deny fact that it gets to the point of no mattering
I don't understand how you can ask the "would you kill your child" question to a Christian, for example, when "thou shall not kill" is one of their top 10 "no no's". Why would their god tell them, as an individual, to do something "he" specifically said not to do?
he is talking about how god asked abraham to kill isaac dumby. its not like he made the question up he is just quoting the bible. thats HOW god could ask that question, because if you do believe in god he has already asked it.
Thats a commandment that was and is given to man by God and/or adoni. As a last given test of faith and obedience to adoni's command. Adoni gave that command/ORDER.
Commandment vs. Command?
Command "Ment" vs. Command.
Old Testament vs. New Testament?
Old test a "Ment" vs. New Test a "Ment"
In the wilderness physical man dwelt with Adoni. In the Arch of the covenant had over 300 more rules that need be fooled.Its as if your mind is playing tricks on you. As if you only believe what you C not RED
i think, that seeing as we all live in a free country, we should beleive what we want to beleive. unless your a muslim cuz they just wanna kill people. but aslong as it's not hurting anyone, people should beleive what they want
How about informing an agnostic that they are now atheists. Since they never had any intent to be labeled as such, the incorporation of agnosticism into atheism will only cause agnostics to migrate to another term that reflects their view.
They say atheism is the absence of belief in god,which agnos. posses. So agnos. are atheistic. But theism is the absence of disbelief in god, which agnos. also posses. So what are they? Theists or atheists? Theyre none. Thats the whole point of the term.
Do you believe in a god? That is the question that seperates religious individuals from agnostics/athiests. Is there a god? That's the question that divides agnostics from athiests. The athiest will answer "no" and the agnostic will answer "I don't know". The definition is in the etimology. Agnostic = without knowledge. Atheist = without god/gods.
The same thing applies both ways. if someone asks, "do you disbelief in gods" and you say yes, then you're an atheist. If you say no/i dont kno, then the disbelief in god is absent. Since theism is the absence of the disbelief in god, then youre a theist. Both/none =agnostic
People get confused with the word absence. and think it's an absence of every single belief. But its only the absence of the belief in god. The disbelief in god is present. It never left. Theism is the absence of atheism.
that is wordplay and simply untrue, thehalfvolley.
Atheism as a word is derived from the combination of the words meaning absence (thats the "a" part) and the word meaning "belief in a God or Gods" (the "theism" part)
The words actual direct meaning is "absence of the belief in a God or Gods"
The actual meaning of theism is "the belief in a God or Gods"
You cannot redefine words to suit your needs.
Many use atheism incorrectly, however, which leads to the misunderstanding
I understand you felt I was making things up or something, since you had to make that absurd comparision, in which you redefined theism to mean the absence of atheism, but that is indeed not the case.
But the correct usage of words also require that one cannot rightfully call someone an atheism when the real definition fits (simply absence of the belief in a God) to then say they fit other defintions as well.
And you are the one confused here, because you don't know what atheism actually means
You could call it word play, mhrby, but I call it simple logic. Doesnt the definition fit theism? The absence of belief most likely was generated by an atheist to negate any type of belief system within atheism. Fine. But in doing so, the original meaning of theism, unchanged, is no longer applicable
In equalities, you learn whatever you do to one side, you do to the other, or else the answer is wrong. If your argument is built on the absence definition of atheism, the absence theism follows
We did not start out with 2 terms called theism and atheism and then change the meaning of atheism into absence of belief in a God, but that was the ORIGINAL meaning of the word.
The original meaning of the word theism is one who belief in a God.
It is that simple.
I have not tried to change the meaning of atheism, thus I do not need to change the meaning of theism
Ok, the original meaning of atheism could have been disbelief in the existence of God, belief in the non existence of god, lack of belief in gods, the absence of a belief in gods. Its all the same. The same thing goes for theism. The disbelief in the nonexistence of a god. belief in the existence,lack of disbelief, absence of disbelief. But for the sake of argument, you match up the absence version of atheism not with the absence version of theism. So all sorts of problems arise. Understandable
The correct question to ask, if you want the "no" answer to be equal to theism, is to ask someone "do you lack a belief in a god?".
If they say no, that is a double negative, as you are not lacking a belief, you have a belief, and thus you have a belief in a God, and you fit the description of theism.
So an agnostic isnt on either side. Neither the force of belief in a god nor disbelief in a god is present. But there's a hole there, which needs too be filled. As long as they are aware of the proposition of the existence of a god there has to be a belief. Their belief is that it is impossible to believe or disbelieve in the existence of the source. The key factor here is evidence. Both atheists and theist say based on current evidence there is/is not a god. Agnostics say not enough evidence.
And no, "the absece of belief" was not generated by an atheist, because it was not change nor altered at any time, if you keep the defintion to what it actually is, which is "the absense of theism".
If you are not a theist, you're an atheist.
Yes, if you are not an atheist, you're a theist.
But you do not need to say yes to the question "Do you disbelief in God?" to be an atheist, that is NOT a requirement to fit the definition of atheist.
If you actively disbelief in God, or rather "belive there is no God", then you are more than atheist, then you fit the catagory "anti-theist", which is an entirely different term from atheist altogether, while all anti-theists are atheists, not all atheists are anti-theists.
To do the same alterations as you are doing, I would have to requalify atheist to being all who is not Christian, to fit your redefintion of theism, and that makes absolutely no sense
Anti-theist- n, "a disbeliever in the existence of god."
Atheist- n, "a person who denies of disbelieving the existence of a supreme being." Its pretty much the same. There's no active and dormant disbelief. Disbelief and belief are conscious emanations. The only way is to not have known in the first place. For ex. Do you believe in a trashiterionamuscagon? See what i just did,I just turned you into a disbeliever. Because now its known to you. Automatic process in a cause and effect plane
My dictionary is wrong? Ok. And yours is right? Why? The erroneous interpretation can be traced back to what a disbelief is. Most people will conclude that a lack of a belief in god inevitably leads to a disbelief in God. Fine. But like belief, disbelief is a force, a projected thought process of the conscious mind. Not a stagnant default. So a lack of disbelief in god will inevitably lead to a belief. No?
I really don't see the point in continuing to debate this with you.
I am talking about etymologi(sp?) which is the origin of words, how they are derived and wht they actually mean, while you choose to use the modern alternated popularized versions of the words.
Agnostics is not a middle ground, however, as Agnostism goes towards what you know, while theism and atheism goes towards what you belive.
I am personally agnostic atheist.
But you continue to misuse the words if you so please
By his defenition, nearly everyones an atheist. All christians and jews, nearly all muslims and sikhs, they have scriptures that have violent ideas that they basically ignore. The Bible has a passages about stoning. When was the last time a christian stoning took place?
I dont think that makes them atheist, it just makes them christians with their own moral compass. Anyway, there are a million reasons not to do what god says, or is alledged to have said, not all of them are lack of devotion.
I resent this glib wordplay...it perpetuates the angst of certain earnest, thinking people...however, Penn, you do point up the need for a careful re-statement of definitions, and perhaps the replacement of some terms squeezed juiceless and useless by the current, often careless (as in your case) debate...BTW, what if this god had asked you to avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks?
Seriously? So, Penn thinks The only way anyone who isn't Atheist is dangerous?
First do you believe God would ask you to kill your child? Sure, he did to Abraham but remember.. it was a test and in the end he was given a lamb in his place.
Penn stop talking about religion because you know NOTHING about it!
Except that primative bronze age goat farmer didn't know it was a test at the time and pretty much said "Okie dokie, you're the boss God, kill my son."
So that's not really making your argument any better.
So, your choice in argument is the insult of a man who lived 4,000 years ago. First you call him "primative" (primitive) based off his ancient existence. Then you attempt to insult him by calling him a "goat farmer" as if to insult the profession it's self.
I know when people are losing an argument the best defense is an insult.
and as much as I'd like to argue this with you I believe your total ignorance on the subject won't provide much of a conversation.
Okay let's disregard era, profession and supposed level of education. He was still willing to kill his son, test or not. If God hadn't said "Woah! Stop, just testing ya!" that man would have killed his son. How does that make your argument of "It was only a test!" seem any better?
That a supposed God, a loving God, would even ask is horrifying. What's worse is that a man not knowing he was being tested would comply.
That doesn't paint either character in this story in a better color.
@orlandrake Keep in mind, the idea of a loving god didn't come about until the new testament, prior to that god was a real sadistic psychopath and all around bastard (Killing the entire population of mankind save for 1 family because he didn't like how people were turning out, nevermind omnipotence or omniscience). I guess only sticking the tip in and knocking up a woman in Bethlehem made him re-evaluate things, does that mean he was wrong for that first however many years?
I asked my mother the same question and she couldn't answer. When it comes down to the basics people who believe in deities don't want to answer the really tough questions.
Honestly why would I want to obey anybody that refuses to show themselves, let alone ordering me to kill a loved one in order to prove my allegiance.
i am a FULLY DEVOTED christian and i am positive beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a God. a God which consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, i know that he is real because i can FEEL him in me. please if you would like to discuss this with me, i would be most happy to talk with you.
If you are a Christian I really wouldn't bring up Einstein quotes because Einstein also said Christianity was pure bullcrap. That is the huge mistake Christians make when using Einstein to support their claims...lol
You're right. Einstein was not "religious" in a traditional sense. Here's his view: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Are you a Christian? You seem to be hiding what you are. Second, I never said Einstein was an atheist (he was a pantheist), but he didn't have any problem with being referenced as one since in his own words he referred himself as an atheist when it came to the ideas of Christian and Judiast priests. So it still comes down to the same line: "If you are a Christian, you are pissing in the wind when you use Einstein quotes".
There might be a higher entity that exists in this universe, but if we spend our entire lives looking for this entity, our life would be wasted.
That's why I'm agnostic, because it's more in the neutral zone, not like certain atheists and followers of certain religions who prefer to fight each other aggressively.
There might be an 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' that exists in this universe, but if we spend our entire lives looking for this entity, our life would be wasted.
Have you ever tried looking at the probability of things existing?
Well I was referring to your idea of "SENDING pictures, video, and sound" not the EXISTENCE of these waves, so I assumed you meant the devices we created and not the waves themselves.
And your point about Tesla is good, but I would say that he made a hypothesis based on his observations and previous science.
If he had just SAID they exist without ANY evidence (ala faith in God) and been right, that would have been a remarkable coincidence. So I think it's unnatural to equate the two things.
You are watching the video, he says repeatedly that it is how it feels to him and his view. Congratulations on not being able to comprehend something so simple.
Technically this video is totally wrong. If god spoke to you and told you to do something like kill someone, then you must necessarily believe that god told you this and thus believe god exists. Its possible to believe that god exists and still disobey.
It is not possible to not believe that god exists, and believe that god told you something in order to disobey something you don't believe exists... circular argument. Bad definition of atheism.
i believe that agnostics are people who more often then not have issue with christian doctrine but abstain from atheism in fear of damnation if wrong. they sort of ride the fence which i believe is worse. god is really not into being played. or letting people think he can be.
Atheism is severe closed-mindedness. Consider someone with that mindset who lived in the 1800's. They would never believe that we would one day be sending pictures, video and sound through the air on invisible electro-magnetic waves. Why? Because it was invisible, and hadn't been proven.
I think you mean "pray", not prey. We might not agree, but if we can learn from each other, that's a good thing.
The point I was making is that agnostics are open-minded, because although they think the existence of God is very improbable, they stay open to it being a possibility. This is what a good scientist does: No matter how much evidence there is, they stay open to future understandings that could change their beliefs. Atheists close this door, and are not truly open-minded.
quite right, i do mean pray, but what an apt and interesting mistake to make eh!
No, the point you were explicitly making was that atheists were closed minded-
"Atheism is severe closed-mindedness"
apart form the fact that faith was still very prevelant in the 1800's, evolution was put forward to fierce resistance, but because of evidence, open minded people saw it was truth and then could discount god as they had another provable and logical answer.
Yes, I agree that the gradual acceptance of evolution may have been the catalyst for many believers to give up on religion, but I suspect that they may not have been firm in their belief to begin with. And though I don't know the statistics from the 1800's, 84% of the world's population still believe in God. (or, to be more accurate, many different versions of God) So it appears that for many people, there is no conflict between science and religion.
god is not scientific, that is why faith is used as proof instead of actual proof, reasons and evidence.
experiential proof means nothing, it is not shareable, it is delusion.
i fully udnerstand science has not and maybe cannot explain everything ever, but thsi does not mean that thouands of celestial beings throughout the ages created it all.
But no one would have believed that then, as it would have involved foresight. You're not saying "I think there will be a God in the future, when we discover him," you're saying "I believe there is a God NOW."
The Pink unicorn is invisible as well. You're very closed-minded to be an atheist in respect to him. We could very well discover him in the future, after all.
Buy the way, I'd like to point out that all the wonderful technology you mentioned was created by science. :)
Yes, good point. But if people like Tesla and Marconi hadn't been open-minded enough to believe that something invisible like radio waves existed then, (not in the future) even though everyone else told them they were crazy, they wouldn't have made the discovery.
And though I'm a huge science fan, I wouldn't say these things were "created" by science, I would say that they've always been there, it just took us humans a million years or so to discover them and learn how to use them.
But if they hadn't found proof of radio waves would they have stuck by it? if they had used arguments which cannot be disproven, but do not give conclusive proof under the scientific model, would the scientific community acsept their theories as correct and behave as such?
1st question- Tesla worked on many wild ideas and hunches right up to his death, many of which have never panned out, so I think he would have stayed with it.
2nd question-
Probably not. Science demands repeatable, verifiable proof. I had a beautiful, vivid dream last night in which I was conversing with a good friend who passed away two years ago. I can't prove it to you, I can only tell you and you may choose not to believe me. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
WTF?! " Atheists have made up their minds about something that can neither be proven nor dis-proven. Not very scientific-" i mean are you kidding? your statement is like if i would tell you that you are a thief untill you can prove you are not. i mean that´s stupid. i personally will be an atheist untill someone can show me a single REAL proof about god´s existance.
when we find proof of that we produced by self will. Then it only proves some doctorine true. Manyly the bible. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Is he speaking of himself or the heavenly father.
TheAffiliateElite 1 year ago
Maybe pain but what really keeps them living if they hated life so much. Maybe getting something in living life is worth more than not live let alone believing in something, such as tommorow will be a better day. Last but not least. You can teach a person to read but you can't teach them common sense.
TheAffiliateElite 1 year ago
As far as Abraham attempting to kill his son in obediance.Its like saying Abraham lived but,"God" doesn't and how many people have you been able to ask about death after killing themselves or maybe someone who tried. They kept living life because of the pain they felt during the process or maybe life (which is probably the reason they tried to kill themselves in the first place.)
TheAffiliateElite 1 year ago
Some will think to themselves does it matter, maybe he did, there is proof. Where is the documentation. Is it authentic? HOW DOES IT HELP ME.... Does it serve or have a purpose. Does this educate, feed, pay, or heal me. Do I be a follower or a leader. IS HE SOMEONE OF EXAMPLE THAT WILL HELP ME ACCOMPLISH ANYTHINm was a lie. Tired of those who gave him his lifestyle.
TheAffiliateElite 1 year ago
Its do to reading and experiencing life on its terms that you come to this conclusion and although Penn lives but he died thousands of years ago and the world kept growing in intellect and you still lived. The question would be does and did PENN LIVE AND DO YOU BELIEVE (IN PENN).LOL.WOW. The pursuit of knowing or knowledge exhaust many in thought that they will never find the truth is intriguing to one who comes to find out that he/she doesn't have control over his/her own mind let alone life!!
TheAffiliateElite 1 year ago
That's very well said. As of right now we have no idea just what started everything, and we may never. All we can ever hope for is tentative grasps of the truth as we reveal them by science. As far as belief goes, I do have qualms about the method of belief that theists use. Theirs is too concrete to ever be useful or adaptive in a world of ever changing challenges. While I do like thinking practical, I never want my conclusions to be *that* static.
JanisXAChambers 2 years ago
Everyone looks at this point in Abrahams life and thinks that it wasnt right for God to do that and God is mean ect. BUT if you look PAST this point, you see that Abraham became the father of a nation and his seed would be as great as the stars. So God was testing Abrahams faith. You can also say there was no need for this but were a free spirit. We choose what we want to do. We dont have to do what God says. Abe coulda said nope but since he trusted God, he did and hince God spared isaac.
oTheGamer 2 years ago
If a voice or spirit is telling you to kill your child, you need to lay off the LSD.
Atheistnogod 2 years ago
I think the response would be that God would never tell a person to kill his child. So if something is telling you to kill your child, you probably shouldn't do it. I don't believe in religion, only something higher than myself, a humble view of the world.
Edubbplate 2 years ago
Ever read the story of Abraham and Isaac? Ever read Deuteronomy 21:18-21? I think it's great that you believe in something higher than yourself. THAT is something a god couldn't do.
tillnow67 2 years ago
This is part of christian mythology.
Gen 22:1-14 KJV And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. [v. 2] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
satansbuttocks 2 years ago
Beh, That's nothing :3 Read Judges (11:29-39)
The story in a nutshell - A man swears to go that the first thing to greet him after his battle he will sacrifice if he wins. His daughter greets him. This one doesn't end with God changing his mind, however. She's burn alive after she's allowed to 'morn her virginity'.
JanisXAChambers 2 years ago
@Edubbplate Why would God never tell a person to kill their child? If you believe that, then you believe in a set of moral values that trump even God's will. If God is everything, then whatever he says is moral and good, is. You believe in a higher power than God Himself (ie. your own moral values), and you're picking and choosing what to believe about Him based on pre-conceived notions. Ergo, you don't really believe in God.
pronpic 2 years ago
That almost sounds like "having your cake and eating it too". I wouldn't listen to any voice in my head, or consider any notion I have as a message from another entity. If I did I would seek professional help. If some being wants to communicate to me, it can do it in a way that's undeniable and verifiable. Anyone could walk up to one stranger on the street and then go to another stranger to verify the conversation. "Did you hear what that guy said". If a man can do it, so can a God.
JanisXAChambers 2 years ago
I do not believe in a god.
And if a god revealed itself to me, and told me to kill a child (don't have any myself), then I would stick 'it' the finger and tell 'it' to go and mind 'its' own business.
TheAnMish 2 years ago
Im and atheist 100%. I still dont understand how people can buy the whole religion thing hook, line, and sinker without any evidence whatsoever. If I go around claiming to be talking to the tree spirits I get put in the padded room for being crazy. If I go around claiming to be talking to the Holy Spirit and the invisible man on the sky, I get a pat on the back and told what a good person I am.
UFOarenotreal 2 years ago
@UFOarenotreal
wheres your evidence for love? Do you not believe in love either?
oTheGamer 2 years ago
I'm not a fan of these terms and. I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't like the question at the end of this video. It's not a yes and no. A person who has strong belief in their god more then likely would see that it is impossible for their god to ever ask them such a thing. It would be like asking me if my brother gave birth to a child would I support him. Can't answer, because I know it's impossible for men to give birth. I see what he is saying, just not a question.
phatcartoon 2 years ago
God is great.
and his name is HELL NOT allah.
His son is Jesus Christ,and all his miracles & blessings were good.
TheSouthernStar 2 years ago
Allah is the arabic translation of the hebrew name Yaweigh which is the god Jesus prayed to you moron.
cfalos 2 years ago
Penn is Jewish.
just a little FWI, so you know who you're dealing with.
TheSouthernStar 2 years ago
Abraham was ready to cut his son's throat. Yahweh was a fucking asshole for commanding that and Abraham was a schizophrenic homicidal daddio for believing that Yahweh commanded it. What a load of bullshit. Religion in all it's ways shapes and forms should be banned and outlawed.
Bizzangle 2 years ago
your morals show that you would ass rape a goat if you were horny.
TheSouthernStar 2 years ago
i wouldnt let anyone talking about ass raping goats preach to me about morals.
cfalos 2 years ago
I actually asked that question from my deeply religious mom couple days back and guess what she said? Yep, I am kinda scared right now.
SCAREDBANANA 2 years ago 2
its hard to make a comment when ("somethingreally") has already said it..
TheXLOTUSx 2 years ago
I am pretty awesome, what can I say?
Somethingreallycool 2 years ago
You people do realize that Roman Catholics believed if you weren't perfect you'd go to hell but nowadays people who SAY they're strict Christians don't even think about that fact. In fact Christianity was the first religion to really even give one about life after death. All its predecessors didn't WANT to die at all to be honest and focused more on the living world-much more healthy in my opinion.
Togekab00m 2 years ago
Mohammed? He was never considered a god, he's a profit! Get your facts right Penn!
SomeOneFromOFS 2 years ago
Profit? You mean prophet.
GAnafisMER 2 years ago
lol, thats a crucial spelling mistake! :D
maxwelloo 2 years ago
smartass
SomeOneFromOFS 2 years ago
I'm a nihilist which is the lack of belief. I do not believe in god, or no god. I am agnostic.
MorkaGraven 2 years ago
Wrong. Nihilist means to believe that life has no meaning behind it. Or more precisely, that we have nothing to strive for or we can't achieve greater. It doesn't mean atheist or agnostic.
Not that I approve labeling but....
Atheist-Does not believe in deities
Agnostic-Uncertainty of what created everything
Nihilist-Belief that nothing has any meaning or purpose
See, a nihilist can believe that a god created the universe, but just out of will, not foresight.
codarkstarxx13 2 years ago
So glad he's clearing this up. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. If you don't proactively believe in the classical god or gods (my own definition to keep it tidy), then you are an atheist. This is a completely separate issue as to whether it is knowable or not.
chuckinator0 2 years ago
God is love. A loving God would not have anyone kill. Thou shall not kill. Of course abraham was tested to see if his faith was strong enough to kill his son. But God stopped him. All religions agree on that. God is Love. If you believe in Love. You believe in God. God bless ya penn.
jasonwkeller76 2 years ago
You are missing a key point in that horrible tale. Abraham obviously thought that it was in the character of his god to request such a sacrififce. For following that god, the character of Abraham was immoral. For being a deity that made such a request and needed to test loyalty in such a horrific manner god is not moral.
Your god is an ass.
ThieleM 2 years ago
to fully understand the significance of this story, you must honestly ask yourself this question: do you think that the act of deception is an act of love? your answer should be no. perhaps you're saying ''well, it's in abe's best interest.'' but no, it was in god's own selfish interest that he did this. not only did he deceive abraham, but he did so under the guise that abe would have to sacrifice his own son. how would you feel if a friend told you to do this to your child, what would you say?
senorchipotle 2 years ago
this video gives me hope for penn. See prayer works.
jasonwkeller76 2 years ago
"DOUBELIEVINGOD" ? Don't ask me, ask your self !
Beefie100 2 years ago
Agnosticism is more intellectually defensible than atheism
Keysteeze 2 years ago
In what way need one defend atheism? There's absolutely nothing to defend to begin with.
As Penn says quite clearly, Agnosticism and Atheism/Theism are not mutually exclusive.
Vire70 2 years ago
Do I Believe: NO.
What "God" Would I Worship? I'd like to believe Thor was real for 2 reasons - he is a great warrior and has a hammer. And as the bible says, Jesus was nailed to the cross... Thor = EPIC WIN. LOL! XD
MusicMyLife2112 2 years ago
A believer would not answer the question Penn poses at the end of this clip with a yes or no. He or she would rather say that God would never, ever, ever ask you to do such an evil thing.
Of course this worshipper of God would forget the wonderful, feel-good story of God asking Abe to do just that to his only son Isaac. But that's a great story from the Bible about how awesome God is and doesn't pertain to real life (unless we're talking about how it proves dinosaurs and man co-existed).
PirateEyepatch 2 years ago 2
HA!
WithEyesToSee 2 years ago
I don't remember reading "The following passage never happened and is just a fictional story" before the story of Abe and Issac.
TBucker 2 years ago
Is it really wrong for people to believe in something bigger then themselves?
Marlin913 2 years ago
nope you are entitled to your beliefs no matter what.
MacBrian001 2 years ago
There's no god.
Guard655 2 years ago
If god asked me to do that I'd say 'go to hell'.
sillymonkey8888 2 years ago
False dilemma. This is not a yes or no question.
davidxssbb 2 years ago
Yes is it. "Would you kill your child?" That's about as simple as a yes or no question can be.
xShad0wGhostx 2 years ago
Let me simplify it:
theist - know gods
gnostic - know knowledge
atheist- no gods (me :D)
agnostic - no knowledge
Anyways, Penn's the shit :P
KingMacintosh 2 years ago
You fail and obviously didn't understand what he said.
Theist = Believes in a god.
Atheist = Doesn't believe in a god.
Agnostic = Doesn't know whether or not god exists.
Gnostic = Does know whether or not god exists.
Agnosticism/Gnosticism and Atheism/Theism are NOT mutually exclusive. Everyone takes one of the two positions regardless of what else they say.
I think you might just be using the wrong word though, "know" indicates "knowledge" which is wrong.
Vire70 2 years ago
Also let me add that agnosticism takes the position not only that "I don't know whether or not god exists," but that it isn't POSSIBLE to prove that God does or does not exist, even theoretically. But maybe I'm just speaking for myself.
Somethingreallycool 2 years ago
I'm not sure that's strictly true.
If one were omniscient it would be possible to know god isn't real. Theists actually have an easier time of it, since all they have to do is provide significant evidence and it would be easy to know that a god does exist, whereas disproving something requires knowledge of virtually everything.
Vire70 2 years ago
But the burden of proof doesn't lie on the agnostic/atheist individual, it lies on the theist.
Somethingreallycool 2 years ago
You hit the nail on the head. For anything we can't perceive directly, the burden of proof is always on the person with the claim, no matter what you're talking about. A good example of this might be black holes. When they were first hypothesized, the scientific community demanded a whole range of evidence and investigation before accepting the theory, because black wholes can't be directly perceived. God can't be directly perceived either, so why place the burden of proof on non-believers?
slimoreilly 2 years ago 3
Who gave this person a thumbs down? I have to even this out a bit....
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
Yes, you're right. I wasn't implying otherwise; merely that to objectively say "There is definitely NO god" you would need omniscience (IE, to know everything)
It doesn't mean we should believe in it in the interim and indeed it's wise not to until it's actually demonstrated to be real by those making the claims.
Vire70 2 years ago
why?
mrquazu 2 years ago
I look at it this way: in Science, we never, ever assume. You know what assuming does (It makes an...). So why should perceived beliefs be any different? Could you imagine the catastrophic events that would take place if we applied that sort of carelessness towards health sciences? We would assume that cancer is just repressed anger, or that HIV can be cured by having sex with a virgin. It's not only genes that are transmitted. Ideas are transmitted, too.
Somethingreallycool 2 years ago
So I not only think that theists should be able to carry the burden of proof for the sake of a valid argument, but for the sake of belief. Every individual should carry the burden of proof every time they believe something. To not do so is not only a waste, but a fatal error.
Somethingreallycool 2 years ago
True
anakshamumun 2 years ago
agnostic here.
theist= adheres to a theology,
atheist= adheres to no theology, (shout from the roof tops what they don't believe, get's butthurt when others disagree)
gnostic= Knows there's a god,
agnostic= unconvinced, skeptical yet willing to accept the possibility
gnostic theist= LOOONY TUNES, knows there's a god and adhere's to the theology with out question
agnostic theist= skeptical of god yet adhere's to theology
gnostic atheist = knows there's a god yet, adhere's to no theology.
Ironhead097 2 years ago
Gnostic Atheist knows there's no god.
Phelan666 2 years ago 3
i like how you break it down lol
i'd have to say, being a wiccan, i'm an agnostic theist.
there's no way for me to know, as penn has said, but i do believe there is and i adhere to what is doctrine. which luckily for me the only doctrine in wicca is the rede :)
vampirekid5490 2 years ago
I contend that we're both athiests, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. when you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephan F Roberts
Ironhead097 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
1 Timothy
who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.
Tell me...can an all powerful God carry out his will?
The modern church has it all wrong (surprise surprise).
GODISUNIVERSAL 2 years ago
The real question is why is Penn using his penis-cam to make youtube videos?
oggedask 2 years ago 2
thats the best question i have herd in a while...
MacBrian001 2 years ago
lmao, i was thinking the same thing.
amkd215 2 years ago
i don't get it...how can one remain atheist after talking to something that is supposed to be non existent? this video boggles my mind.
haudace 2 years ago
A theist who will not kill their child on command might be less faithful theists, but still a theist. Theists don't obey a lot of commands, thank reason, but they still believe in their God or gods. Does weak will mean one does not believe? I don't think so, but it is telling that the faithful are the ones who would kill in the name of their God. Faith can be a very bad trait--it is only reason and evolved kindness that keeps us safe from the faithful.
badad4444 2 years ago
or it could be in the case of the bible with abraham, god only wanted to know that he loved him enough to sacrifice his son.
vampirekid5490 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hah i love this video ! - atheist ftw !
xRe5pect 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
click on my name for the u r l to see why atheism will NEVER be tolerated...
drmabus7 2 years ago
the right for people to choose who their god is and what he does and how he exists for them.
TlGBC 2 years ago
penn says nothing. :D
haudace 2 years ago
i thought that agnosticism was that you didn't believe in a god but the idea of a god sounds good? and Atheism is that you deny the existence of god due to the fact that science and evolution have evidence.
BulkAmount 2 years ago
Nope. In fact there are a lot of atheists who don't believe in god and wish there to be one. The wishing of a god has nothing to do with it. Its about whether you believe or not. Agnostics consider themselves fence sitters but since you don't believe in a god, then your an atheist. Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley who tried to put "atheism" a lighter way after being attacked by the church for his science. Still he couldn't escape the fact that he was an atheist.
MegaJbomber 2 years ago
This video is moot. What if questions are a horrid way to prove ones moral character.
citricsystemz 2 years ago
I don't believe Jesus would ever tell me to kill my kid. I know you'll point out the story of Isac in the Bible, but Abraham didn't kill his son Isac and God never asked that of anyone again. So if I hear a voice tell me to kill my kid, I will go to the hospital because I am sane and something is seriously wrong.
JR042083 2 years ago
That is a good point i agree with what you say
fallbread 2 years ago
Christianity = "The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a naked woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree" acid, its a hellava drug
waldo04 2 years ago
Do you believe the universe is a coincidence?
What i find most incredible is that humans can actualy look at a full night of stars or the unfolding of a flower and go "meh, just a coincidence"
That's about as insane as thinking that it was all created by an anthropomorphic deity who got bored one week and decided to make a little world full of wars and terror that he could watch.
psylence101 2 years ago
# 1 coincidence is a lie. It is a choice to percive a chance within time and space nothing more.
# 2 God is not anthropomorphic
Also what is your religious disposition? Because you say that it is insane to believe in either God or the big bang,and natural selection.
citricsystemz 2 years ago
Actualy I have said nothing of the above.
I infer that the universe is inherently intelligent, however I don't know enough about astronomy or abstract mathematics to be able to confirm the veracity of the Big Bang theory.
I call creativity and manifestation "God", both the sound and the silence are It, also Thou and also I (as in the I AM experienced by all sentience).
I can't give you a formula to describe it, I could point you to certain fields of quantum physics but I doubt that matters.
psylence101 2 years ago
Oh I need to clarify on "God is not anthropomorphic". I was refering specificaly to religious convictions of personified deities.
A god with a personality is categoricaly an anthropomorphic projection.
I see these Gods as metaphors for the many facets of the human relationship to divinity, many of them personify different aspects of the human condition and also encapsulate cultural memes.
Viewed from a transpersonal perspective they have a meaningful archetypal significance.
psylence101 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
click on my name for the u r l to see how we crushed the entire atheist movement
felixmab66 2 years ago
I guess he's trying to draw a distinction between believing (just a leap of faith) vs. thinking. But I can't, in my personal life, draw this distinction. I don't KNOW if I believe in God because I can't say that I even remotely believe in anything until I can have evidence of it. But not having evidence of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So this distinction can't be right.
Somethingreallycool 2 years ago
FALSE PENN. I watched 1 min. and then paused.The question is most certanly "is there a God?" The reason because as a Christian u have a prsonal relatnshp with the living God through JC. This relatnshp is supposed to be deeper, more real, more loving, and more important than any relatnshp u can have with another persn. If you get on ur knees and pray to God eryday, of corse he is real! To that I say pff, "is there a God?" Heck yes! I talkd to him ystrday! COME ON PENN NONE OF THIS SUBJECTIVE CRAP
bolney87 2 years ago
the problem of atheism is that it makes claims with no support...
If i asked penn where morals are derived from how do you think he would answer?
I would speculate that he would
A. redefine it
B avoid the question
good video though penn!
Nytmare8u 2 years ago
1:32 jesus isnt a god he's a person u dumass
skybutton96 2 years ago
But Christians believe that he was a god... Don't ask me why but they do.....
Sshakey6791 2 years ago
oh...i thought that was only some christians...i dunno youre probably right though i really dont pay much attention to christianity lol
skybutton96 2 years ago
I don't pay attention to any religion :) If there a god he will see that I'm doing my best trying to live and helping people. he/she not going to care if i'm worshiping him every Sunday.
Sshakey6791 2 years ago 2
If it's the god of the bible, he'll care a whole lot!
TBucker 2 years ago
not according to the bible he won't :p no matter how great a person you are, you will be sent to eternal torment in hell. harsh world isn't it?
That said, I completely agree with you and think that if there is a god (although I don't think there is) he would never punish people for not worshiping him every sunday, when the fact that most religious people are religious because their parents are.. If I grew up in a very religious home, I would probably be religious. fact.
ystein3000 2 years ago
*rolls eyes*
haudace 2 years ago
Fuck vs. F.U.C.K.-Fornication Under Consent of the King.
What king? God and Lord are Sir-Names.
Theres a Gods many and a Lords many. Each God must have a name and each Lord must have a name also. DO YOU EXIST or Better yet are you something of great creation.
TheAffiliateElite 2 years ago
You post in hope that someone will read it. Do you hope
That adoni doesnt exit. Even if so I can understand your
rashionality. Its a cry to be spared.
You will be held accountable for what you know. I promise
in anyway you look at it.Good or Bad.
TheAffiliateElite 2 years ago
huh?
haudace 2 years ago
lol love penn and teller good question lol
Nugugerube 2 years ago
JackieFiest , God told Abraham to kill his son so this is a valid question
Silbob5 2 years ago
sorry i stole your answer to jackie, i just posted it looked up and saw yours lolz
agrantus 2 years ago
The Judeau-Christian god told Abraham to kill his son in the Old Testament. With the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, their god no longer requires sacrifice from his followers. The the Judeau Christian god doesn't ask for sacrifices anymore.
And, agrantus, if your going to attempt to insult me, please spell it right for fucks sake.
JackieFiest 2 years ago
Figure of speech Vs. Cop-out in 2009
.
Bad can be describing whats good.
Do you believe in the devil, etc.
Said Created: As a, "Worthy adversary" ,to adoni.
Women is someone who offers opposition to Men.
If this matters to nature. Is it possible that nature created an entity that can and is so seen and felt before and after death that so superior that other entities feel superiorly inferior and obsolete in character that its easy to deny fact that it gets to the point of no mattering
TheAffiliateElite 2 years ago
Penn,
I don't understand how you can ask the "would you kill your child" question to a Christian, for example, when "thou shall not kill" is one of their top 10 "no no's". Why would their god tell them, as an individual, to do something "he" specifically said not to do?
JackieFiest 2 years ago
he is talking about how god asked abraham to kill isaac dumby. its not like he made the question up he is just quoting the bible. thats HOW god could ask that question, because if you do believe in god he has already asked it.
agrantus 2 years ago
Thats a commandment that was and is given to man by God and/or adoni. As a last given test of faith and obedience to adoni's command. Adoni gave that command/ORDER.
Commandment vs. Command?
Command "Ment" vs. Command.
Old Testament vs. New Testament?
Old test a "Ment" vs. New Test a "Ment"
In the wilderness physical man dwelt with Adoni. In the Arch of the covenant had over 300 more rules that need be fooled.Its as if your mind is playing tricks on you. As if you only believe what you C not RED
TheAffiliateElite 2 years ago
i think, that seeing as we all live in a free country, we should beleive what we want to beleive. unless your a muslim cuz they just wanna kill people. but aslong as it's not hurting anyone, people should beleive what they want
yugface 2 years ago
How about informing an agnostic that they are now atheists. Since they never had any intent to be labeled as such, the incorporation of agnosticism into atheism will only cause agnostics to migrate to another term that reflects their view.
They say atheism is the absence of belief in god,which agnos. posses. So agnos. are atheistic. But theism is the absence of disbelief in god, which agnos. also posses. So what are they? Theists or atheists? Theyre none. Thats the whole point of the term.
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
no!
Theism is not the ebsense of disbelief in God.
Theism means "belief ina god"
A is short for absense, meaning atheism is the absense of theism.
If you are not a theist, you are by definition an atheist.
Some people do not know what atheism actually means and thus wrongfully label themselves as no atheists, while they are not theists
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Do you believe in a god? That is the question that seperates religious individuals from agnostics/athiests. Is there a god? That's the question that divides agnostics from athiests. The athiest will answer "no" and the agnostic will answer "I don't know". The definition is in the etimology. Agnostic = without knowledge. Atheist = without god/gods.
ptrlapp 2 years ago
Wrong.
If you on the question "Do you belive in a God or Gods?" say "yes", you are a theist.
If you say anything else, you're an atheist, including "I don't know".
Atheisme comes from the combination of 2 words. Absense and Theism. The moment you do not have theism (a belif in a God or gods), you are an atheist.
If you answer "I don't know", you are an agnostic ATHEIST, but still an atheist
mhrby1985 2 years ago
The same thing applies both ways. if someone asks, "do you disbelief in gods" and you say yes, then you're an atheist. If you say no/i dont kno, then the disbelief in god is absent. Since theism is the absence of the disbelief in god, then youre a theist. Both/none =agnostic
People get confused with the word absence. and think it's an absence of every single belief. But its only the absence of the belief in god. The disbelief in god is present. It never left. Theism is the absence of atheism.
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
that is wordplay and simply untrue, thehalfvolley.
Atheism as a word is derived from the combination of the words meaning absence (thats the "a" part) and the word meaning "belief in a God or Gods" (the "theism" part)
The words actual direct meaning is "absence of the belief in a God or Gods"
The actual meaning of theism is "the belief in a God or Gods"
You cannot redefine words to suit your needs.
Many use atheism incorrectly, however, which leads to the misunderstanding
mhrby1985 2 years ago
I understand you felt I was making things up or something, since you had to make that absurd comparision, in which you redefined theism to mean the absence of atheism, but that is indeed not the case.
But the correct usage of words also require that one cannot rightfully call someone an atheism when the real definition fits (simply absence of the belief in a God) to then say they fit other defintions as well.
And you are the one confused here, because you don't know what atheism actually means
mhrby1985 2 years ago
You could call it word play, mhrby, but I call it simple logic. Doesnt the definition fit theism? The absence of belief most likely was generated by an atheist to negate any type of belief system within atheism. Fine. But in doing so, the original meaning of theism, unchanged, is no longer applicable
In equalities, you learn whatever you do to one side, you do to the other, or else the answer is wrong. If your argument is built on the absence definition of atheism, the absence theism follows
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
Sorry, but you are simply talking bollocks now.
We did not start out with 2 terms called theism and atheism and then change the meaning of atheism into absence of belief in a God, but that was the ORIGINAL meaning of the word.
The original meaning of the word theism is one who belief in a God.
It is that simple.
I have not tried to change the meaning of atheism, thus I do not need to change the meaning of theism
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Ok, the original meaning of atheism could have been disbelief in the existence of God, belief in the non existence of god, lack of belief in gods, the absence of a belief in gods. Its all the same. The same thing goes for theism. The disbelief in the nonexistence of a god. belief in the existence,lack of disbelief, absence of disbelief. But for the sake of argument, you match up the absence version of atheism not with the absence version of theism. So all sorts of problems arise. Understandable
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
The correct question to ask, if you want the "no" answer to be equal to theism, is to ask someone "do you lack a belief in a god?".
If they say no, that is a double negative, as you are not lacking a belief, you have a belief, and thus you have a belief in a God, and you fit the description of theism.
Your question and definitions are faulty
mhrby1985 2 years ago
So an agnostic isnt on either side. Neither the force of belief in a god nor disbelief in a god is present. But there's a hole there, which needs too be filled. As long as they are aware of the proposition of the existence of a god there has to be a belief. Their belief is that it is impossible to believe or disbelieve in the existence of the source. The key factor here is evidence. Both atheists and theist say based on current evidence there is/is not a god. Agnostics say not enough evidence.
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
And no, "the absece of belief" was not generated by an atheist, because it was not change nor altered at any time, if you keep the defintion to what it actually is, which is "the absense of theism".
If you are not a theist, you're an atheist.
Yes, if you are not an atheist, you're a theist.
But you do not need to say yes to the question "Do you disbelief in God?" to be an atheist, that is NOT a requirement to fit the definition of atheist.
mhrby1985 2 years ago
If you actively disbelief in God, or rather "belive there is no God", then you are more than atheist, then you fit the catagory "anti-theist", which is an entirely different term from atheist altogether, while all anti-theists are atheists, not all atheists are anti-theists.
To do the same alterations as you are doing, I would have to requalify atheist to being all who is not Christian, to fit your redefintion of theism, and that makes absolutely no sense
mhrby1985 2 years ago
Anti-theist- n, "a disbeliever in the existence of god."
Atheist- n, "a person who denies of disbelieving the existence of a supreme being." Its pretty much the same. There's no active and dormant disbelief. Disbelief and belief are conscious emanations. The only way is to not have known in the first place. For ex. Do you believe in a trashiterionamuscagon? See what i just did,I just turned you into a disbeliever. Because now its known to you. Automatic process in a cause and effect plane
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
Sorry, but your dictionary is wrong. You just need to look up the origins of the words to know it.
And no, just because atheism is the lack of a belief or the absence of a belief, theism does not need to be defined in the same way.
Atheism is by true defintion the absence of theism.
Yes, you can define theism as the absence of theism, but atheism is NOT the disbelief in God, it is the LACK of the belief in a God.
mhrby1985 2 years ago
My dictionary is wrong? Ok. And yours is right? Why? The erroneous interpretation can be traced back to what a disbelief is. Most people will conclude that a lack of a belief in god inevitably leads to a disbelief in God. Fine. But like belief, disbelief is a force, a projected thought process of the conscious mind. Not a stagnant default. So a lack of disbelief in god will inevitably lead to a belief. No?
thehalfvolley 2 years ago
I really don't see the point in continuing to debate this with you.
I am talking about etymologi(sp?) which is the origin of words, how they are derived and wht they actually mean, while you choose to use the modern alternated popularized versions of the words.
Agnostics is not a middle ground, however, as Agnostism goes towards what you know, while theism and atheism goes towards what you belive.
I am personally agnostic atheist.
But you continue to misuse the words if you so please
mhrby1985 2 years ago
By his defenition, nearly everyones an atheist. All christians and jews, nearly all muslims and sikhs, they have scriptures that have violent ideas that they basically ignore. The Bible has a passages about stoning. When was the last time a christian stoning took place?
I dont think that makes them atheist, it just makes them christians with their own moral compass. Anyway, there are a million reasons not to do what god says, or is alledged to have said, not all of them are lack of devotion.
gww1 2 years ago
I resent this glib wordplay...it perpetuates the angst of certain earnest, thinking people...however, Penn, you do point up the need for a careful re-statement of definitions, and perhaps the replacement of some terms squeezed juiceless and useless by the current, often careless (as in your case) debate...BTW, what if this god had asked you to avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks?
chasermartinsyde 2 years ago
....anyone who resorts to showing a naked
lady at the end of their show is off my
list of programs to watch. Down with
liberalism and doing anything to make a
buck. The moral decay of society was
best debicted in the movie 'Charlie', when
he became brilliant and examined the
future of humanity and its' inevitable
discourse of mediocracy and hedonism.
What a waste of life.
polisharabia 2 years ago
...anyone can make a buck by being stupid and/or immoral. And the praise
people give to those making the buck in
doing so, is indicative of laziness/hedonism and/or all vile
poison which inevitably will take each
individual doing so into a well deserved
sewer of thought and futility.
polisharabia 2 years ago
Seriously? So, Penn thinks The only way anyone who isn't Atheist is dangerous?
First do you believe God would ask you to kill your child? Sure, he did to Abraham but remember.. it was a test and in the end he was given a lamb in his place.
Penn stop talking about religion because you know NOTHING about it!
Orion6415 2 years ago
Except that primative bronze age goat farmer didn't know it was a test at the time and pretty much said "Okie dokie, you're the boss God, kill my son."
So that's not really making your argument any better.
orlandrake 2 years ago
So, your choice in argument is the insult of a man who lived 4,000 years ago. First you call him "primative" (primitive) based off his ancient existence. Then you attempt to insult him by calling him a "goat farmer" as if to insult the profession it's self.
I know when people are losing an argument the best defense is an insult.
and as much as I'd like to argue this with you I believe your total ignorance on the subject won't provide much of a conversation.
Orion6415 2 years ago
Okay let's disregard era, profession and supposed level of education. He was still willing to kill his son, test or not. If God hadn't said "Woah! Stop, just testing ya!" that man would have killed his son. How does that make your argument of "It was only a test!" seem any better?
That a supposed God, a loving God, would even ask is horrifying. What's worse is that a man not knowing he was being tested would comply.
That doesn't paint either character in this story in a better color.
orlandrake 2 years ago
@orlandrake Keep in mind, the idea of a loving god didn't come about until the new testament, prior to that god was a real sadistic psychopath and all around bastard (Killing the entire population of mankind save for 1 family because he didn't like how people were turning out, nevermind omnipotence or omniscience). I guess only sticking the tip in and knocking up a woman in Bethlehem made him re-evaluate things, does that mean he was wrong for that first however many years?
Floridanon407 2 years ago
He had anger issues but having a kid changes you apparently... except for that whole revelation bullshit. That's apparently God's relapse.
Honestly though, I don't understand how people defend the story of Abraham and Jacob and think it makes God or Abraham look good.
orlandrake 2 years ago
@orlandrake Cant very well expect rational judgement of irrational people, I suppose.
Though there's plenty of those on either side, half-informed angsty atheists and frothing religious zealots alike.
Floridanon407 2 years ago
penn, you're my fucking hero
sirbristel 2 years ago 3
I asked my mother the same question and she couldn't answer. When it comes down to the basics people who believe in deities don't want to answer the really tough questions.
Honestly why would I want to obey anybody that refuses to show themselves, let alone ordering me to kill a loved one in order to prove my allegiance.
aoishounen 2 years ago
@aoishounen it would be funny if she said yes.
gregory19862007 2 years ago
Oh really? Explain how THAT would be funny.
aoishounen 2 years ago
my belief is that i am unable to know. there ya go
AggressiveAgnostic 2 years ago
i am a FULLY DEVOTED christian and i am positive beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a God. a God which consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, i know that he is real because i can FEEL him in me. please if you would like to discuss this with me, i would be most happy to talk with you.
laughinoutloud1000 2 years ago
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein
cochisekid 2 years ago
cochisekid,
If you are a Christian I really wouldn't bring up Einstein quotes because Einstein also said Christianity was pure bullcrap. That is the huge mistake Christians make when using Einstein to support their claims...lol
animation3dfx 2 years ago
@animation3dfx
You're right. Einstein was not "religious" in a traditional sense. Here's his view: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
Einstein did not like to be called an atheist.
cochisekid 2 years ago
cochisekid,
Are you a Christian? You seem to be hiding what you are. Second, I never said Einstein was an atheist (he was a pantheist), but he didn't have any problem with being referenced as one since in his own words he referred himself as an atheist when it came to the ideas of Christian and Judiast priests. So it still comes down to the same line: "If you are a Christian, you are pissing in the wind when you use Einstein quotes".
atheisthandbook 2 years ago
i guess we won't know if Santa Claus existed or not eh.
I suppose we're all agnostic towards that statement too.
shawondemand 2 years ago
There might be a higher entity that exists in this universe, but if we spend our entire lives looking for this entity, our life would be wasted.
That's why I'm agnostic, because it's more in the neutral zone, not like certain atheists and followers of certain religions who prefer to fight each other aggressively.
Idude893 2 years ago
There might be an 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' that exists in this universe, but if we spend our entire lives looking for this entity, our life would be wasted.
Have you ever tried looking at the probability of things existing?
nukeum2 2 years ago
Well I was referring to your idea of "SENDING pictures, video, and sound" not the EXISTENCE of these waves, so I assumed you meant the devices we created and not the waves themselves.
And your point about Tesla is good, but I would say that he made a hypothesis based on his observations and previous science.
If he had just SAID they exist without ANY evidence (ala faith in God) and been right, that would have been a remarkable coincidence. So I think it's unnatural to equate the two things.
ieatpeopleok 2 years ago
whos this guy telling me I have to believe or not believe in his concept of god?
whatisit51 2 years ago
You are watching the video, he says repeatedly that it is how it feels to him and his view. Congratulations on not being able to comprehend something so simple.
DDowza 2 years ago
Technically this video is totally wrong. If god spoke to you and told you to do something like kill someone, then you must necessarily believe that god told you this and thus believe god exists. Its possible to believe that god exists and still disobey.
It is not possible to not believe that god exists, and believe that god told you something in order to disobey something you don't believe exists... circular argument. Bad definition of atheism.
Ormaaj 2 years ago 2
i believe that agnostics are people who more often then not have issue with christian doctrine but abstain from atheism in fear of damnation if wrong. they sort of ride the fence which i believe is worse. god is really not into being played. or letting people think he can be.
hopefulmiracle01 2 years ago
Atheism is severe closed-mindedness. Consider someone with that mindset who lived in the 1800's. They would never believe that we would one day be sending pictures, video and sound through the air on invisible electro-magnetic waves. Why? Because it was invisible, and hadn't been proven.
bobcranwell 2 years ago
no, atheism is severe open mindedness to scientific evidence and not the closed minded spoonfeeding of doctrine.
if we were closed minded then we would believe everything any one told us; the tooth fairy, wanking makes you blind, and santa clause.
if theists were really open minded then they would prey to all gods, including thor, ganesh, anubis etc.
EM waves were probable when people discovered the potential, thus theyre common now.
God has NEVER been probable, and never will be.
miken16 2 years ago 2
@ miken16
I think you mean "pray", not prey. We might not agree, but if we can learn from each other, that's a good thing.
The point I was making is that agnostics are open-minded, because although they think the existence of God is very improbable, they stay open to it being a possibility. This is what a good scientist does: No matter how much evidence there is, they stay open to future understandings that could change their beliefs. Atheists close this door, and are not truly open-minded.
bobcranwell 2 years ago
quite right, i do mean pray, but what an apt and interesting mistake to make eh!
No, the point you were explicitly making was that atheists were closed minded-
"Atheism is severe closed-mindedness"
apart form the fact that faith was still very prevelant in the 1800's, evolution was put forward to fierce resistance, but because of evidence, open minded people saw it was truth and then could discount god as they had another provable and logical answer.
miken16 2 years ago
@miken16
Yes, I agree that the gradual acceptance of evolution may have been the catalyst for many believers to give up on religion, but I suspect that they may not have been firm in their belief to begin with. And though I don't know the statistics from the 1800's, 84% of the world's population still believe in God. (or, to be more accurate, many different versions of God) So it appears that for many people, there is no conflict between science and religion.
bobcranwell 2 years ago
god is not scientific, that is why faith is used as proof instead of actual proof, reasons and evidence.
experiential proof means nothing, it is not shareable, it is delusion.
i fully udnerstand science has not and maybe cannot explain everything ever, but thsi does not mean that thouands of celestial beings throughout the ages created it all.
miken16 2 years ago
@bobcranwell
But no one would have believed that then, as it would have involved foresight. You're not saying "I think there will be a God in the future, when we discover him," you're saying "I believe there is a God NOW."
The Pink unicorn is invisible as well. You're very closed-minded to be an atheist in respect to him. We could very well discover him in the future, after all.
Buy the way, I'd like to point out that all the wonderful technology you mentioned was created by science. :)
ieatpeopleok 2 years ago
Yes, good point. But if people like Tesla and Marconi hadn't been open-minded enough to believe that something invisible like radio waves existed then, (not in the future) even though everyone else told them they were crazy, they wouldn't have made the discovery.
And though I'm a huge science fan, I wouldn't say these things were "created" by science, I would say that they've always been there, it just took us humans a million years or so to discover them and learn how to use them.
bobcranwell 2 years ago
But if they hadn't found proof of radio waves would they have stuck by it? if they had used arguments which cannot be disproven, but do not give conclusive proof under the scientific model, would the scientific community acsept their theories as correct and behave as such?
chippyprice1993 2 years ago
@ chippyprice1993
1st question- Tesla worked on many wild ideas and hunches right up to his death, many of which have never panned out, so I think he would have stayed with it.
2nd question-
Probably not. Science demands repeatable, verifiable proof. I had a beautiful, vivid dream last night in which I was conversing with a good friend who passed away two years ago. I can't prove it to you, I can only tell you and you may choose not to believe me. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
bobcranwell 2 years ago
Comment removed
cochisekid 2 years ago 2
WTF?! " Atheists have made up their minds about something that can neither be proven nor dis-proven. Not very scientific-" i mean are you kidding? your statement is like if i would tell you that you are a thief untill you can prove you are not. i mean that´s stupid. i personally will be an atheist untill someone can show me a single REAL proof about god´s existance.
ANZO89 2 years ago
Comment removed
cochisekid 2 years ago 2