Golden rule of huminity found in most relegions: A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29) It says: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."
my second remark is, where did the laws and rules of science that u believe in so much come from? we can agree that those are so precise and never change. Is it from the universe? where did the universe originate from?big bang? how was the big bang created? frm a single entity of infinite mass right? how did that single entity of infinite mass exist? and how can something like the Quran written 1400 yrs ago know about something such as that?
ur a man of science u should be able to explain that.
There are certainly plenty of things we don't know, but the koran didn't know them either. Isn't it interesting that only AFTER science has done all the hard work, the koran is retrospectively interpreted to fit the known facts? Where is an example of a koranic scientific "fact" that has yet to be established by science? If the koran had pi calculated to a million decimal points (or even 10,000), you might have a case. The vague koranic waffle offered as "scientific proof" is NOT going to do.
its not vague at all, well you will consider it vague but i will get you the verses for both parts and i hope you don't mind me sending you a message?
your comment at 30 seconds is false. You can live in a muslim country with out having to be a muslim just like christians, jews, zorastians have lived within the islamic empire. Also read the Quran sura 109 Al Kafiroon (rejectors of faith). and there are other verses as you might know that deal with this situation.
My statement was not false at all! I don't dispute that the koran does mandate tolerance, and the treatment of "people of the book" as fellow (but 2nd class) citizens. However, the penalty for leaving Islam is of course death, inter marriage with those of other faiths is discouraged and actively attempting to convert anyone to ones own faith also gets you into hot water. It is an obvious and crude mechanism to breed other religions out of existence in a generation or two.
None of the things theist are claiming need to be proven to the satisfaction of a 'skeptical audience', as the thoughts and doubts of skeptics aren't relevant to theism. To argue that my beliefs are incoherrant unless you agree with them is just as intolerant to me as the very idea of religion is to you.
Thats just rubbish, and deep down you know it. You climb into cars, fly in areoplanes and use electricity <b>because it all works</b>, in billions and billions of experiments every single day. You want us to ascribe the same level of credence to unproven and self evident nonsense, written down thousands of years ago by primitives with less knowledge of the natural world than a modern 10 year old? Fuck off. Really, do.
God is irrelevant might work for you and thats great. But just because you say it does not make what you say fact. Just as I can not prove God is real. No one can prove he is not real. What I do agree with you on is religions are a stumbling block on allot of levels. It tends to create war more then Peace. Man has soiled religions so bad the real truth is lost. So I hang on to my Faith and try to treat everyone the same as I would want to be treated.
Actually God is irrelevant. For example, I can type Allah suck my cock!! Does anything happen? Am I destroyed by a bolt of lightening? I can say Jesus was a child molester, and the Virgin Mary was a whore. Anything? Thats what I mean. Completely irrelevant. Religions, are of course another thing altogether.
I am not sure what your point is. God gave free will. So you can trash him if you want without the fear of him stricking you down. If he did then we would not have free will.
Whatever, still completely irrelevant. Will God stop me from killing my family, or my neighbours, or detonating a nuclear weapon? No. But the police will. So the police are more relevant than God. My point is that belief or no belief, it makes not a blind bit of difference, thus God is utterly irrelevant.
In Islam we believe in Qadar this is the power that gives harm and help in creation when you do bad you get bad when you do good you get good. Everything that the Qur'an forbids if you were to do it it would cause you harm and vice versa. For example, homosexuality causes cancers rectal and oral.
:) so the people of Bangledesh is the worst muslims ever. Being constantly tortured by their god with diseases, floods and monsuns. Shame on them???? We have debated homosex. and cancer another place Jdeen. Does lesbians get cancers from giving eachother oral pleasures?
Am I wrong? Will God intervene? Will he help, prevent, save, improve things in any <i>tangible</I> way? No. Thus irrelevant. You might just as well worship a carton of milk for all the good it would do you. Thats all I'm saying, and I am absolutely right.
God already told us he would not intervene. It's called free will. We only will make it on faith alone. So I hold my faith and block out fellow Christians and Islam since they are flawed big time. Saying "and I am absolutely right" is irrogent and is also known for starting wars in history. I am not pushing God on you. But why do you worry about something you do not believe?
No God told us no such thing. You read in a book written by someone you never met that God gave humans free will. This is not the same thing. Regardless, (whatever seems to offend you) my point stands, God is irrelevant since he does nothing tangible. My radical take is that since he does nothing, says nothing, and is never seen or heard, he probably doesn't exist. Certainly he's irrelevant.
I worry about religion because some people take this stuff so seriously, that they kill and oppress others. George Bush for example. I consider that bad, and religion by extension as the source of the behaviour. So I post the occasional video:-)
I am not offended by whay you say. I just get a kick out of your being so negative since I dont agree with you. Atleast it seems that way to me. Enjoy life.
Is science your god? Is reason going to cure all of humankind's ills? You said scientists don't fight each other, meaning science can resolve all conflicts? That seems a rather limited view.
Einstein wasn't able to stop those who used his science for mass murder.
I have no idea if reason will cure all mankinds ills, what is certain is that religion can't. Religion has had 6000 years, we've been at the science/reason thing for about 300, lets give it a bit longer shall we?
I'm just suspicious of rationality born in the West. That kind of science was made to objectify nature as something manipulable to suit human ends. That science separates humans from nature. And where has it got us today? Global warming. Pollution. Over-production and consumption. De-forestation. etc etc.
All these problems occur in pre-industrial civilisation. I would argue that it is religion that claims we are different from nature, not science. The last 100 or so years of biology has done nothing but demonstrate how undeniably related we are to nature.
Rationality has unleashed incredible powers, powers that can destroy us, but also for the first time defend our species and our planet against the medium term threats the universe casually flings our way every couple of million years. In another 1000 years we will be gone, or as close to our mythical Gods as makes little practical difference. It's a good trade, one the dinosaurs no doubt wish they had made:-)
I'm sure religion is relevant in many societies, I just don't see how it is relevant in all aspects of life, as many atheists here on YT seem to think. Can we completely eradicate something in us that has led us to invent religion? That belief in something immaterial? That there is something else other than the empirical? I prefer to stay open to possibilities. I prefer to believe that I can't know everything, and that human rationality cannot explain everything :)
I too stay open to the possibilities, but I refuse to pander to irrational and unfounded beliefs. Every system, theory and contention that humans come up with must to open to relentless scrutiny and critique, religion tries to shield itself from this, and with good reason, it doesn't stand up. If it stands the crucible of critical analysis, super, if not good riddance.
Sir, wars in the name of religion were not really caused by religion but used as an excuse. Shia vs sunni in Iraq is a political power struggle NOT a riligous divide as most outsiders think, shias and sunnis are interrealted ,how can they kill each other?. I am telling you this because I lived there. simple proof, you never EVER heard of shia sunni violance pre 2003.
Actually that is simply wrong. There has been violent confrontation between Sunni and Shia since the 700/800 CE. That there was peace for SH entire "tenure" is certainly true, but we need to take a slightly broader perspective than Iraq's recent history. This divide is certainly used and abused by cynical politicians, as they are in any religion. This is exactly my point. Islam, like every religion before it is simply a flawed man made institution. The evidence speaks for itself.
no sir, that is not true. The fight that happened at that time, occured when there was not such a thing as sunni and shia. Later on, shia(shia of ali and hussain) were associated with the victims, but the sunnis were not directly associated -but implied-with the aggressors. so again, fights occured (limited bases) not because of sect *association* and were NOT defined as such, but simplyh over politics.
This is simply a gloss you prefer. Yet these two groups, at least by 1500 CE where still fighting and calling each other sunni and shia. I suggest you brush up on your own history.
Why should one not doubt everything? If some random person tells you the master of the universe has a special message for you, would you listen? Yet you can find out more about that person than you ever could about mohammed.
"Miracles" happen every day on you tube, performed by Guru's in India. Have you researched and investigated these modern day miracles? No because you know it's almost certainly nonsense. Thats exactly how I feel about your claims. Life is too short to check out every crack pot that claims he's a prophet.
'Life is too short to check out every crack pot that claims he's a prophet. '
but when that prophet raised out of complete oppression to rule the country within 23 yrs..produced a book that moves men to tears just by listening it, a book memorised by childrenwho aren't even arabs or who even know arabic, and makes people willing to leave everything to please GOD...and when that way he brought is opposed to ur sad oppressive world, then its in your interest to check it.
You are convince by this. I am not, and neither are about anothe 5.5 billion humans. I've looked close enough to see it's simply the same nonsense as every other religion that has ever been.
truth is absolute. Either there is a GOD or not. Either there is one GOD or many. and so on.
either u are right or i am.
thing is, if i am wrong, no worries...but if i am right and hell is real, as has been mentioned over and over again in the major religions, then u will have some explaining to do to GOD.
even from such a theoretical probability/statistical point of view, u have lost.
<i>even from such a theoretical probability/statistical point of view, u have lost.</I> No actually, <b>you</b> have (probably) lost. I'm not betting anything, you've put your money on one God out thousands. We had this discussion ... remember? Maybe noy:-) Pascals Wager is not a binary proposition.
But you can't possibly know that, which is why it is absurd to cast my doubt as arrogance, and your certainty as a virtue. You are the one who <b>must be deluding themselves</B>, because of your impossible certainty. I am holding all options open in the default state of unbelief pending evidence.
holding all options open is not allowed. because when u hold all options open, that means u r holding the full buffet of beliefs, many contradicotry to each other and within itself and within the world of (proven, not theoretical) science.
Faith itself, seems to be the key issue of disagreement for logical theists and logical Atheists. Where an Atheist sees faith as an abdication of reason, a Theist sees Faith as what it is by the dictionary definition; confidence in people or ideas. While Faith may seem more irrational to Atheists, to Theists Faith is a part of life that all people deal with, and is use as a means to better the world by creating a progressive existence where hardship leads to a greater good
What most religious people won't give up is that the lessons that their religion has to teach are well worth silly beliefs for them; because if you say there is no God at all, then the entire world we live in becomes ironic, and I assure you there would be millions of formerly religious willing to end our existence.
As far as attributing all the world's worst setbacks and problems to having religion at their root thats just uncalled for. Where Religion goes wrong is where it goes from practical Theology as an explanation of paranormal souls and afterlife and the like (which you probably don't believe in anyway) to irrational explanations based off of little evidence, stuff like the world's creation in 7 days quickly disproved.
uh, Islam fell from the scientific world to European learning and the renaissance around 13/1400AD because, well first of all and the no1. reason you left off the list is because the Mongols conquered the Abbasid Capital at Baghdad in 1258 by Hulagu Khan, solidifying the Ilkhanate. scientists in Baghdad were extremely advanced, and while the Abbasid throne was aging and in need of outside protection (Mamelukes)The loss of Baghdad was much much worse
"the religious were convinced the earth was flat".No,muslims knew that i wasnt.If the history is your strong side,you'll remember that.The reason is that in Qoran the darkness is described in that way,that it is CLEAR that the earth is round/oval.Google a little(sialm and science)&u'll see.best regards:-)
Well the christian religious, certainly were and it is absolutely true that the islamic world outstripped the European in science up until about the 13/1400 CE. What went wrong? This guys (Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Isma'el al-Ash'ari) teaching gained ascendancy, religious mumbo jumbo of the worst kind and it froze Islamic development in time. An event as regretable perhaps as the fall of classical Greek civilisation. All the worst derailments and setbacks of humanity have religion at their root:-(
hallo.you talk about proof. I just wanted to remember you,our scientist "proofed" so many things before and in the end we realize(d) that it is not true.scientist were very convinced that the earth is not round/oval:)
so we can see,the sciences is realtive. nevertheless,its nice to see that you are replying with respect to ninjagirl and giving your best to build bridges.
Of course, everything is relative, and we must reason out and justify our positions on topics moment to moment based on available evidence. Not dogma. I think NG is wonderful, articulate and exactly the sort of muslim we need to hear more from. We "fight" but it's good natured,I think. You'd have to ask her I suppose:-) Bist Du Deutsch? Ich kann ein bisschen Deutsch, und ich brauche die uebung:-)
Actually .... no. In this instance, the religious were convinced the earth was flat and early scientists where the ones who set them straight. Your broader point is true of course, science has no dogma, all truth is provisional and science is self correcting in a way which religion is not. That is why it is responsible for <i>everything</I> of value, including your lengthened lifespan, that you have.
Well, we can have some limited agreement on this front. I'll conceed both points. However this is not the <i>first</I> that sunni and shia have been hard at it. The Americans have made a mess of things, but they have merely exarcebated pre-existing divisions, where violence has occurred before, and is always a possibility.
The whole argument is insipid, it fails to take prime factors in to account rather lumps them in to one argument that religion is to blame, very good for youtube but you get your ass canned in academic environment, that is why you should continue with this line of argument!
What specifically though? By all means lets have an <i>academic</I> argument. I'm certain an ass will be canned, but it is unlikely to be mine:-) Either provide a substantive rebuttal or bother someone who is impressed by generalisation and rethoric.
Ass is already canned! Because it is so difficult for you to see your problem I am just going to list one example! In Iraq, sunni are killing shia, and vice versa. Shia are killing Shia and Sunni are killing Suni, and Americans are instigating and also doing the same. You still won't get it, and you want further explanations! I have little time to waste on this!
yes the soundtrack was good, some interesting points you have raised here, i agree with your definition on atheism however many people often misinterpret the definition of an atheist which sometimes annoys me
After NinjaGirl said Pat Condell was "devoid of any human compassion whatsoever, any decency...in constant war against anyone who believes something different" I thought her peace video must be total BS. Those words are simple violence justifications. I'm surprised you recognized her moderate tolerance, and am glad you summarized the problems with her preferred route to peace. Kudos.
Ping me a PM and we pick this up with your MP3 suggestion. Please forgive my obsessive responding, but I'm stickler for the last word. Especially on my own threads:-)
How does a child, bound, gagged, raped and then murdered have a choice? It's one thing to label alcohol abuse of drug taking as free will, but it's absurd to label the murder of one human by another an act of "free will", because on one side of the equation we are left with no choice but to die. Even flawed human societies do a better job of balancing intersecting free wills than "God". God can bite me. If he exists he is clearly a monster, who wants to worship a celestial thug?
You blame God for natural disasters !! How can you blame God ? You don't believe he exists > Sorry my friend , you're not getting away with that one . If you blame God for natural disasters , then you must acknowledge his existence . Which is it ??
I merely use this as a figure of speech. I don't believe in God, but you do. The problem of natural disasters is not mine, it's yours and thats my point. Natural disasters that kill thousands or even <i>millions</I> in an instant square nicely with a pitiless universe, my position. Theists are left with an awful lot of explaining to do.
I disagree on the self assembling universe . However the universe was created , this was the way that God design it to be created . If the universe was created a different way altogether , you would still dispute it . You will dispute it no matter what .
I'm tempted to have a discussion with you , but I have great pain through prolonged typing . If you care to send me via PM your email , I would record my thoughts via mp3 Interested ?
Oh golly just saw this! Why not just make a vid and post it as private in youtube, if you don't want too much attention:-)? Send me a PM and let me know how you want to proceed, I'm happy to do the exchange of email if that suits you better.
Hi again. No web cam I'm afraid . If I can figure out how to record a voice recording , I'll maybe Pm You . . Tell me this , would you believe in God if the bible had no inconsistencies.? Do you casually dismiss the your entire reason for being , for existing , for thinking , because of ( what you perceive to be ) some literary contradictions ? Would you spend eternity in hell ... for that .
What I mean is .. of all the reasons not to believe in God , some biblical inconsistencies is probably the worst reason ever . There are a million reasons why you should . Use these are guidance .
On the contrary, I think these are very good reasons indeed. In the first instance this raises the issue of God's failure to communicate in such a way as to communicate a clear cut revelation. Instead we have a confused hodge podge, and a blizzard of opinions and nothing that can reasonably be considered conclusive.
Take a simply issue like washing your hands before helping women give birth. It took a mere 50 years for this wisdom to become utterly pervasive globally. Because it was true, and it's efficacy could be measured and tracked in a totally compelling way. Yet 2000 years post Jesus, and 1400 years post mohammed, all the original questions are still open. Why? Because the whole foundation of the thing is built on speculation. I have video about this can't remember which one though.
Hmnn No you are not a lost cause , it is just that you are asking the wrong questions . You say God's failure to communicate ! Do you think that the God who created the universe, and us , cannot communicate . Does that question not appear utterly absurd to you ? Whatever God's reasons for not talking ( he is actually talking, but not in the way you want him to , or think he should ) whatever those reasons are , failure has nothing to do with it .
Ahhh. How worng this guy is. It is the refusal to accept religious doctrin that is the problem, not the doctrine. He's got his head screwed on backwards. He'll learn when he dies what the truth is. ; )
The recourse of the truly despicable theist. If you don't have the guts to threaten someone directly, have your God do it for you. A "real" muslim would have threatened me himself. Standards <i>are</I> falling .... and see my video "the ethics of hell", it does a number on the utter peversity of a God that creates beings, <b>knowing</B> they will burn for ever.
People chose between God and... other, whether that be no God or something evil. You've made yours - no God. The truth is most who claim to be agnostic or atheist DO believe in God, they just don't want him. So, they make the choice - no God, no "afterlife" with him. Yea, God knows people will chose. He sure does. :o
Yet despite that foreknowledge, he creates humans anyway. Sounds pretty pointless really, and that is arguably the <i>kindest</I> thing one can say about it.
Certainly if only vague and poorly defined actions can protect from eternal torment, yes! However, thats not the issue, I don't <i>believe</I> this stuff, you can just as readily swap Jesus for Allah, Jehovah or Baal in all my comments. I'm just using the detail that religion provides, dizzying amounts of it (how does anyone <i>know</I>?), to illustrate how ethically and intellectually barren it is.
It depends on how you define ethics > There are God's ethics and man's ethics .Man can live by his ethics but God's ethics supercedes them . ( assuming you believe in God )
Well yes, I can follow that train of thought. The issue comes in how God communicate his ethics to you. How do you know what God approves/disapproves of?
I'm tempted to say the bible , but that gives you a get out clause . You will look up the first phrase or passage that has any kind of contradiction and use that as an example of Go'd non-existence . Am I right ?
Close:-) Your awareness of the "trap" means you recognise the many faith wrecking icebergs of inconsistency that dot the ocean of literature we call the Bible. Actually though, I'm more interested in the ethical outrages in the Bible (stoning for Sabbath breakers for example), and how you work your way around those?
If you cherry pick the good bits (love thy neighbour), but ditch the bad bits (slavery is part of life, deal with it), where do your moral intuitions come from?
Evolution has been prooven actually. Rather take a look at this site which contains pictures of amber which have closed in it insects which look exactly like the ones you can find now 100-500 millions years ago. So, no sign of evolution:
due to you're lack of knowledge Islam is not a religion therefore not considered a "stumbling block" like you say. Islam is a way of life. you are still invited. peace
Christians have never said that but in your case it must have been recent. if you don't have that correct understanding of something yes, it can be dangerous in your reasoning.
It seens that peace without religion is just as unlikely as peace based upon secular values. Whose secular values? What secular borders? The U.N. has had decades to bring peace to the world, It hasn't worked, and religion has less to do with it than the fight for resources. Religion may motivate people to fight, but it is almost never the underlying cause.
I actually don't think this is correct. Certainly religion is not the only cause of division and violence, but it is a primary motivator. As regards secular values, I imagine the values that the democracies of our planet share would be a good start. That also gets us to up over 50% of the planetary population.
faith: /feɪθ/ 2. belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (dictionary*reference*com). The dictionary don´t seem to me "very few people"!! :)
Having faith that a hypothesis would be substantiated is not remotely the same thing as claiming by faith that an hypothesis is substantiated. You are confusing faith in an outcome, with a faith claim that such and such is so.
So sure, an individual scientist has "faith" that an hypothesis will have a give outcome, but no one else will accept their hypothesis on "faith", they must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The religious would have us accept on "faith" that their specific mythical construct is real. I say prove it first beyond reasonable doubt, as this is conventionally understood, in an empirical sense. Can't do it? Still believe it? Thats faith, and you are welcome to it:-)
It is worth repeating : Very few people would consider, for example, the assumptions that scientist make when studying quantum physics "faith". This is the persistent (and increasingly annoying) point you are making. That is of course nonsense, it is not faith in any conventional sense in which it is used. This is merely a crude semantic ploy to render all enquiry equal. Which it is clearly not.
It is worth repeating: faith: /feɪθ/ 2. belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (dictionary*reference*com). The dictionary don´t seem to me "very few people"!! :)
I'm not disputing this definition of faith, just your "understanding" of it's application, and I have refuted your contentions to my absolute satisfaction. If you think by being a troll, I'm going to block you, I won't though:-) Is this your normal modus operandi? To persistently say the same tiresome thing in different ways? It's getting old.
Check... you made a totally general and unjustified afirmation on your video that I said I disagree, that "faith is an abdication...". I just explained you why I disagree and you understood saying now that you "don´t dispute". My "uderstanding" of it is your act of faith on this chat. Nothing was refuted more than what you imagined I said, really I said nothing much more about the subject. :)
Faith as both you and I understand it, or at least as the dictionary defines it is <b>still an abdication of our responsibility as rational beings</B> when it comes to religious claims about God. LOL - you've obviously convinced yourself that you've won this argument. Simply restating the same false strawman won't do it:-)
Tsst! I didn´t won anything more that helping you being a bit more precise than in your video as I said when started this. It´s an improvment!. Why you put this in terms of "wining"?. What do you need?. Check the videos "Evidence Inside" in my channel, chap 2 is about the tricks your mind is playing you here :)
I repeat in different ways till you understand, that´s patience not "troll". I´m not worried about blockings, just being polite and saying goodbye because I have work to do now. Till next!!
GLAD I FINALLY CONVINCED YOU OF WHAT I SAID STARTING THIS DIALOG: "So then, faith is NOT "an abdication of our responsabilities as rational being", may be is the base for it!.". Take care!! Till next! :)
Facts may prove on both sides. It is what you believe, its not catholic thing even if it is. I think you are not good enough to go throw that! Do not worry. We talking here about instincts that controlling behaviors of human were. British woman does not raise me but I know what it means to be rising under pressures, people have to choose between being on the completely correct line or wrong line never in the meddle of things. If you did not fight those, you will get deeper.
See...not talking with precision leads to this kind of mistake, if ones wants to be accurate must say "wars occurs, most of them by economics and power reasons, and religion may be an excuse". It´s not religion who can cause a war, only people can do that. And excuses for war are many, but causes are really few.
Oh this is just a cheap dodge. The appeal to trancendence is a powerful motivator as 6000 years of recorded history attests. Religions may not be the only irrational ideologies to infect humanity, but they are among the most powerful of motivators. If there was genuine outbreak of universal rationality wars would all end tomorrow, religions just get in the damn way of that.
Can you prove that "the outbreak" will work or you are just making and act of faith?. Is this your religion?, believing in the "genuine outbreak of universal rationality" that will come to save us, seems a complicated name for "Mesiah" :). Agree that religion is a motivator, it keeps motivating you!!
Not at all. As soon as europeans pooled sovreignity within the EU, the causes and rewards of war were undercut. This was a rational decision taken after the madness of WWII. There are many such examples. You consistently confuse blind faith, with the rational assessment of available information, and I think you are doing it on purpose because you just don't seem stupid enough to be doing it by accident. It's cheap con mans trick. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it:-/
faith: Belief that is not based on proof. Just that, nothing more. All faith is based on "rational assessment of available information", you can discuss then the quality of the data you handle, but not discard faith as you did in your video. Again, just trying to be precise :). A religious person do not give up rationality (from his point of view), just consider useful data that you choose to dismiss.
If you were genuinely interested in being precise, you wouldn't make these kinds of disingenous statements. Very many religious people, <i>even from their own point of view</I>, give up rationality entirely. Martin Luther for example <b>"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."</B>, there is plenty more of that kind of self delusion bouncing around in theistic circles.
An intelligent person may have trouble coming to a definitive conclusion about a generic Creator, but most of them know the details of their religion are self evident nonsense. Hence faith.
Are there any more instantly refuteable assertions you'd care to make:-)? You've got a few moves, but you're hardly coming up with anything that original:-)
I didn´t made any refutable assertion, just you agreed with me that faith is useful and used, and that God (without defining properties) can´t be denied. You didn´t refute that and I didn´t say practically anything more!. Don´t focus on "owning me" or finding moves. I´m not discussing with you nor trying to convince you of nothing. Just doing what I can to give more data widen your horizons! :)
I don't think comparing rational enquiry to faith adds anything to the debate. As I've noted we must make basic assumptions about the world and our experience of it, and I mistakenly thought this was the direction you were heading in, and was eager to find common ground. To consider these propostions <b>genuinely equal</B> is disingenous and misleading. So I'd suggest you not do it, I consider it obviously dishonest, it adds nothing to your credibility and I'll call you on it every time.
Again, don´t focus on me as I don´t focus on you. Talk about my arguments if you want, my credibility or honesty are not on risk here :). Just see if you can follow the exercise. Remember, I´m the prophet of the "faith of skepticism"!.
Think... isn´t that the most rational assessment with the available information that Martin Luther considered to be true from his point of view?. So... that is the same logic you use, just in another environment! :)
No, and neither would Martin Luther. He actively suppressed his reason, and encouraged others to do so because it contradicted Gods word. A modern equivalent would be the creationist Ken Ham, who admits science contradicts creationism at every turn, but that "Gods word" takes priority.
Again, if you believe "Gods word" is true, IT´S A LOGICAL AND RATIONAL OPTION to give it priority!... so your are not giving up reason, just applying it in a different environment! :). All faith is based on "rational assessment of available information", so there is no difference between your faith (assumptions) or others.
Of yes!! Which means the chap who thinks he's a poached egg, is exactly as justified in his belief as the rest of us. Uh no. I will not be buying this particular bridge today. If you genuinely believe this (and I am gradually coming to the horrified conclusion that you do), I suggest you see some kind of reality therapist. All world views are <i>not</I> equally valid, and we have objective ways to verify that.
Never said nothing is justified... just said that "All faith is based on "rational assessment of available information", so there is no difference between your faith (assumptions) or others". You are making wrong assumptions and projections here, perhaps the ones you made on other places are equally unsustainable. :)
It is confused to state, as you have done above that <b>"there is no difference between your faith (assumptions) or others"</b>. Faith, as understood in most religions is unrecognizable as the artifact you describe, and rational choices are equally unrecognizable to those who favour that method over faith.
I never talk about religious faith in particular, just faith as defined on the dictionary. When you are comparing faith as differents you are focusing on results not on how it works :). It`s different one car from another just because one goes to London and the other to Washington?
Very few people would consider, for example, the assumptions that scientist make when studying quantum physics "faith". This is the persistent (and increasingly annoying) point you are making. That is of course nonsense, it is not faith in any conventional sense in which it is used. This is merely a crude semantic ploy to render all enquiry equal. Which it is clearly not.
The implication of your position, is that all world views are equally valid. I can only restate that this is obviously not the case, and clear nonsense. Some positions are more grounded in observable reality than others, and most religions are free floating from observable reality <i>altogether</I>. This is the understanding of faith I am disputing as useful, if that helps? For the record, I consider simply restating positions that I have explained I disagree with and why, as trolldom.
Not read any conspiracy :). Just applied logic to evidence I have, made a projection and concluded something I believe now... that your are thinking on what you are writing... and now reality (you) confirmed that is true so I don´t believe, I almos know!. JUST SCIENCE WORKING!! :)
Then read the "visual aids" included :). Being short, faith is used everywhere and is used a lot in science. If you can believe in axioms, why you can´t believe in other thing?. So in spite of what you want to believe, you are also a believer!! :)
Will this is no doubt true. One must assign probabilities to those things in which one has "faith". I assign a very low probablity to the existence of God, and I think I have very good reasons for that.
So then, faith is NOT "an abdication of our responsabilities as rational being", may be is the base for it!. There are many other afirmations as this in your video that are all "half trues", as in this case just searching for practical examples will help you find them.
Oh nonsense. <i>Religious</I> faith is a clear abdication of our responsibilities, I shall have to take a <i>much</I> firmer line if you are going to play word games:-/ Semantics do little to improve the probability that Allah, Jesus or God exists.
What you are talking about are assumptions, which are certainly required in the more esoteric areas of Science. Assumptions, probability calculation and reason have nothing to add to the statement "Jesus died for my sins". Or "Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse". If fact little disgusts me more than the kind of bait and switch you just pulled. I'm downright pissed.
and this is why the koran cannot be questioned,it keep muslims under control.can you imagine 2 billion muslims thinking for themselves.ANARCHY
naybobdenod 2 years ago
Golden rule of huminity found in most relegions: A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29) It says: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."
zetigrey 3 years ago
my second remark is, where did the laws and rules of science that u believe in so much come from? we can agree that those are so precise and never change. Is it from the universe? where did the universe originate from?big bang? how was the big bang created? frm a single entity of infinite mass right? how did that single entity of infinite mass exist? and how can something like the Quran written 1400 yrs ago know about something such as that?
ur a man of science u should be able to explain that.
bojabjab 4 years ago
There are certainly plenty of things we don't know, but the koran didn't know them either. Isn't it interesting that only AFTER science has done all the hard work, the koran is retrospectively interpreted to fit the known facts? Where is an example of a koranic scientific "fact" that has yet to be established by science? If the koran had pi calculated to a million decimal points (or even 10,000), you might have a case. The vague koranic waffle offered as "scientific proof" is NOT going to do.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
its not vague at all, well you will consider it vague but i will get you the verses for both parts and i hope you don't mind me sending you a message?
bojabjab 4 years ago
By all means, but I've seen this stuff before, and it's no more convincing than the "prophecies" of the Bible, or Nostradamus.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
your comment at 30 seconds is false. You can live in a muslim country with out having to be a muslim just like christians, jews, zorastians have lived within the islamic empire. Also read the Quran sura 109 Al Kafiroon (rejectors of faith). and there are other verses as you might know that deal with this situation.
bojabjab 4 years ago
My statement was not false at all! I don't dispute that the koran does mandate tolerance, and the treatment of "people of the book" as fellow (but 2nd class) citizens. However, the penalty for leaving Islam is of course death, inter marriage with those of other faiths is discouraged and actively attempting to convert anyone to ones own faith also gets you into hot water. It is an obvious and crude mechanism to breed other religions out of existence in a generation or two.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
While this arrangement may have been very liberal & progressive for the 7th century, not involving mass murder and genocide, it won't cut it today.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
None of the things theist are claiming need to be proven to the satisfaction of a 'skeptical audience', as the thoughts and doubts of skeptics aren't relevant to theism. To argue that my beliefs are incoherrant unless you agree with them is just as intolerant to me as the very idea of religion is to you.
LothairLorraine 4 years ago
Thats just rubbish, and deep down you know it. You climb into cars, fly in areoplanes and use electricity <b>because it all works</b>, in billions and billions of experiments every single day. You want us to ascribe the same level of credence to unproven and self evident nonsense, written down thousands of years ago by primitives with less knowledge of the natural world than a modern 10 year old? Fuck off. Really, do.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
all theism is filthy garbage
Benthamite 4 years ago
Ben,agree with you 100%
Dalbert342 4 years ago
Just as one claims God is not real due to no prove. It also work's the other way as well. You can't prove God is not real.
Peace
Forevermore2007 4 years ago
No, but I can prove God irrelevant, which will do for now:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
God is irrelevant might work for you and thats great. But just because you say it does not make what you say fact. Just as I can not prove God is real. No one can prove he is not real. What I do agree with you on is religions are a stumbling block on allot of levels. It tends to create war more then Peace. Man has soiled religions so bad the real truth is lost. So I hang on to my Faith and try to treat everyone the same as I would want to be treated.
Peace
Forevermore2007 4 years ago
Actually God is irrelevant. For example, I can type Allah suck my cock!! Does anything happen? Am I destroyed by a bolt of lightening? I can say Jesus was a child molester, and the Virgin Mary was a whore. Anything? Thats what I mean. Completely irrelevant. Religions, are of course another thing altogether.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I am not sure what your point is. God gave free will. So you can trash him if you want without the fear of him stricking you down. If he did then we would not have free will.
Peace
Forevermore2007 4 years ago
Whatever, still completely irrelevant. Will God stop me from killing my family, or my neighbours, or detonating a nuclear weapon? No. But the police will. So the police are more relevant than God. My point is that belief or no belief, it makes not a blind bit of difference, thus God is utterly irrelevant.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
In Islam we believe in Qadar this is the power that gives harm and help in creation when you do bad you get bad when you do good you get good. Everything that the Qur'an forbids if you were to do it it would cause you harm and vice versa. For example, homosexuality causes cancers rectal and oral.
Jdeen5 4 years ago
Well it certainly makes sense to kill people for engaging in homosexuality. We wouldn't want them <i>maybe</i> dying of cancer in 20 years would we?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
:) so the people of Bangledesh is the worst muslims ever. Being constantly tortured by their god with diseases, floods and monsuns. Shame on them???? We have debated homosex. and cancer another place Jdeen. Does lesbians get cancers from giving eachother oral pleasures?
Tvebak2 4 years ago
Whatever? I thought you were good at debating. I see I might have been wrong.
Forevermore2007 4 years ago
Am I wrong? Will God intervene? Will he help, prevent, save, improve things in any <i>tangible</I> way? No. Thus irrelevant. You might just as well worship a carton of milk for all the good it would do you. Thats all I'm saying, and I am absolutely right.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
God already told us he would not intervene. It's called free will. We only will make it on faith alone. So I hold my faith and block out fellow Christians and Islam since they are flawed big time. Saying "and I am absolutely right" is irrogent and is also known for starting wars in history. I am not pushing God on you. But why do you worry about something you do not believe?
Forevermore2007 4 years ago
No God told us no such thing. You read in a book written by someone you never met that God gave humans free will. This is not the same thing. Regardless, (whatever seems to offend you) my point stands, God is irrelevant since he does nothing tangible. My radical take is that since he does nothing, says nothing, and is never seen or heard, he probably doesn't exist. Certainly he's irrelevant.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I worry about religion because some people take this stuff so seriously, that they kill and oppress others. George Bush for example. I consider that bad, and religion by extension as the source of the behaviour. So I post the occasional video:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I am not offended by whay you say. I just get a kick out of your being so negative since I dont agree with you. Atleast it seems that way to me. Enjoy life.
Peace
Forevermore2007 4 years ago
Is science your god? Is reason going to cure all of humankind's ills? You said scientists don't fight each other, meaning science can resolve all conflicts? That seems a rather limited view.
Einstein wasn't able to stop those who used his science for mass murder.
lochli23 4 years ago
I have no idea if reason will cure all mankinds ills, what is certain is that religion can't. Religion has had 6000 years, we've been at the science/reason thing for about 300, lets give it a bit longer shall we?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I'm just suspicious of rationality born in the West. That kind of science was made to objectify nature as something manipulable to suit human ends. That science separates humans from nature. And where has it got us today? Global warming. Pollution. Over-production and consumption. De-forestation. etc etc.
lochli23 4 years ago
All these problems occur in pre-industrial civilisation. I would argue that it is religion that claims we are different from nature, not science. The last 100 or so years of biology has done nothing but demonstrate how undeniably related we are to nature.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Rationality has unleashed incredible powers, powers that can destroy us, but also for the first time defend our species and our planet against the medium term threats the universe casually flings our way every couple of million years. In another 1000 years we will be gone, or as close to our mythical Gods as makes little practical difference. It's a good trade, one the dinosaurs no doubt wish they had made:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I'm sure religion is relevant in many societies, I just don't see how it is relevant in all aspects of life, as many atheists here on YT seem to think. Can we completely eradicate something in us that has led us to invent religion? That belief in something immaterial? That there is something else other than the empirical? I prefer to stay open to possibilities. I prefer to believe that I can't know everything, and that human rationality cannot explain everything :)
lochli23 4 years ago
I too stay open to the possibilities, but I refuse to pander to irrational and unfounded beliefs. Every system, theory and contention that humans come up with must to open to relentless scrutiny and critique, religion tries to shield itself from this, and with good reason, it doesn't stand up. If it stands the crucible of critical analysis, super, if not good riddance.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Bla bla bla
2praise 4 years ago
You poor bastard, that really is what it sounds like to you, isn't it? :-( You have my sympathy.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Sir, wars in the name of religion were not really caused by religion but used as an excuse. Shia vs sunni in Iraq is a political power struggle NOT a riligous divide as most outsiders think, shias and sunnis are interrealted ,how can they kill each other?. I am telling you this because I lived there. simple proof, you never EVER heard of shia sunni violance pre 2003.
TanJuan 4 years ago
Actually that is simply wrong. There has been violent confrontation between Sunni and Shia since the 700/800 CE. That there was peace for SH entire "tenure" is certainly true, but we need to take a slightly broader perspective than Iraq's recent history. This divide is certainly used and abused by cynical politicians, as they are in any religion. This is exactly my point. Islam, like every religion before it is simply a flawed man made institution. The evidence speaks for itself.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
no sir, that is not true. The fight that happened at that time, occured when there was not such a thing as sunni and shia. Later on, shia(shia of ali and hussain) were associated with the victims, but the sunnis were not directly associated -but implied-with the aggressors. so again, fights occured (limited bases) not because of sect *association* and were NOT defined as such, but simplyh over politics.
TanJuan 4 years ago
This is simply a gloss you prefer. Yet these two groups, at least by 1500 CE where still fighting and calling each other sunni and shia. I suggest you brush up on your own history.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Why should one not doubt everything? If some random person tells you the master of the universe has a special message for you, would you listen? Yet you can find out more about that person than you ever could about mohammed.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
"Miracles" happen every day on you tube, performed by Guru's in India. Have you researched and investigated these modern day miracles? No because you know it's almost certainly nonsense. Thats exactly how I feel about your claims. Life is too short to check out every crack pot that claims he's a prophet.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
'Life is too short to check out every crack pot that claims he's a prophet. '
but when that prophet raised out of complete oppression to rule the country within 23 yrs..produced a book that moves men to tears just by listening it, a book memorised by childrenwho aren't even arabs or who even know arabic, and makes people willing to leave everything to please GOD...and when that way he brought is opposed to ur sad oppressive world, then its in your interest to check it.
feaddy22 4 years ago
You are convince by this. I am not, and neither are about anothe 5.5 billion humans. I've looked close enough to see it's simply the same nonsense as every other religion that has ever been.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
'5.5 billion '
numbers mean nothing.
'You are convince by this. I am not'
truth is absolute. Either there is a GOD or not. Either there is one GOD or many. and so on.
either u are right or i am.
thing is, if i am wrong, no worries...but if i am right and hell is real, as has been mentioned over and over again in the major religions, then u will have some explaining to do to GOD.
even from such a theoretical probability/statistical point of view, u have lost.
feaddy22 4 years ago
<i>even from such a theoretical probability/statistical point of view, u have lost.</I> No actually, <b>you</b> have (probably) lost. I'm not betting anything, you've put your money on one God out thousands. We had this discussion ... remember? Maybe noy:-) Pascals Wager is not a binary proposition.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
'you've put your money on one God out thousands. '
yes, i have.
and my deal is profitable.
is ur deal profitable ?
refer back to my probability theory. PUT your arrogance to the side and think deeply.
feaddy22 4 years ago
But you can't possibly know that, which is why it is absurd to cast my doubt as arrogance, and your certainty as a virtue. You are the one who <b>must be deluding themselves</B>, because of your impossible certainty. I am holding all options open in the default state of unbelief pending evidence.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
truth is absolute, not many and contradictory.
i have found the truth and accepted.
you haven't.
holding all options open is not allowed. because when u hold all options open, that means u r holding the full buffet of beliefs, many contradicotry to each other and within itself and within the world of (proven, not theoretical) science.
so holding all options means u r very confused.
feaddy22 4 years ago
God is One. He feeds you. He gives u air. He created u, gave u life, and ability to think. will u not then remember ?
feaddy22 4 years ago
'Why should one not doubt everything?'
when proof is presented, you should not be arrogant and reject it.
doubt..research..learn..but once u see truth or a better way of life or a way that seems to be the truth and so on, then u need to submit and accept.
feaddy22 4 years ago
Faith itself, seems to be the key issue of disagreement for logical theists and logical Atheists. Where an Atheist sees faith as an abdication of reason, a Theist sees Faith as what it is by the dictionary definition; confidence in people or ideas. While Faith may seem more irrational to Atheists, to Theists Faith is a part of life that all people deal with, and is use as a means to better the world by creating a progressive existence where hardship leads to a greater good
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
What most religious people won't give up is that the lessons that their religion has to teach are well worth silly beliefs for them; because if you say there is no God at all, then the entire world we live in becomes ironic, and I assure you there would be millions of formerly religious willing to end our existence.
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
As far as attributing all the world's worst setbacks and problems to having religion at their root thats just uncalled for. Where Religion goes wrong is where it goes from practical Theology as an explanation of paranormal souls and afterlife and the like (which you probably don't believe in anyway) to irrational explanations based off of little evidence, stuff like the world's creation in 7 days quickly disproved.
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
uh, Islam fell from the scientific world to European learning and the renaissance around 13/1400AD because, well first of all and the no1. reason you left off the list is because the Mongols conquered the Abbasid Capital at Baghdad in 1258 by Hulagu Khan, solidifying the Ilkhanate. scientists in Baghdad were extremely advanced, and while the Abbasid throne was aging and in need of outside protection (Mamelukes)The loss of Baghdad was much much worse
OptimusGonzoo 4 years ago
"the religious were convinced the earth was flat".No,muslims knew that i wasnt.If the history is your strong side,you'll remember that.The reason is that in Qoran the darkness is described in that way,that it is CLEAR that the earth is round/oval.Google a little(sialm and science)&u'll see.best regards:-)
justice4all1985 4 years ago
Well the christian religious, certainly were and it is absolutely true that the islamic world outstripped the European in science up until about the 13/1400 CE. What went wrong? This guys (Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Isma'el al-Ash'ari) teaching gained ascendancy, religious mumbo jumbo of the worst kind and it froze Islamic development in time. An event as regretable perhaps as the fall of classical Greek civilisation. All the worst derailments and setbacks of humanity have religion at their root:-(
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
hallo.you talk about proof. I just wanted to remember you,our scientist "proofed" so many things before and in the end we realize(d) that it is not true.scientist were very convinced that the earth is not round/oval:)
justice4all1985 4 years ago
so we can see,the sciences is realtive. nevertheless,its nice to see that you are replying with respect to ninjagirl and giving your best to build bridges.
best regards
:)
justice4all1985 4 years ago
Of course, everything is relative, and we must reason out and justify our positions on topics moment to moment based on available evidence. Not dogma. I think NG is wonderful, articulate and exactly the sort of muslim we need to hear more from. We "fight" but it's good natured,I think. You'd have to ask her I suppose:-) Bist Du Deutsch? Ich kann ein bisschen Deutsch, und ich brauche die uebung:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Great YT handle by the way. I completely agree with the sentiment ... but I think we'll disagree on the method:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Actually .... no. In this instance, the religious were convinced the earth was flat and early scientists where the ones who set them straight. Your broader point is true of course, science has no dogma, all truth is provisional and science is self correcting in a way which religion is not. That is why it is responsible for <i>everything</I> of value, including your lengthened lifespan, that you have.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
very nice video, very well articulated. thanks
brainworm1 4 years ago
sunnis and shias were not killing each other like now until the americans came. America coulda bought the oil for how much they spent on the war.
abujazar22 4 years ago
Well, we can have some limited agreement on this front. I'll conceed both points. However this is not the <i>first</I> that sunni and shia have been hard at it. The Americans have made a mess of things, but they have merely exarcebated pre-existing divisions, where violence has occurred before, and is always a possibility.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Such a simplistic non-sense!
ovaisreza 4 years ago
Really. What <i>specifically</I>, did you find simplistic? Do tell.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
The whole argument is insipid, it fails to take prime factors in to account rather lumps them in to one argument that religion is to blame, very good for youtube but you get your ass canned in academic environment, that is why you should continue with this line of argument!
ovaisreza 4 years ago
What specifically though? By all means lets have an <i>academic</I> argument. I'm certain an ass will be canned, but it is unlikely to be mine:-) Either provide a substantive rebuttal or bother someone who is impressed by generalisation and rethoric.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Ass is already canned! Because it is so difficult for you to see your problem I am just going to list one example! In Iraq, sunni are killing shia, and vice versa. Shia are killing Shia and Sunni are killing Suni, and Americans are instigating and also doing the same. You still won't get it, and you want further explanations! I have little time to waste on this!
ovaisreza 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that Sunni are <i>not</I> killing Shia in Iraq?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
yes the soundtrack was good, some interesting points you have raised here, i agree with your definition on atheism however many people often misinterpret the definition of an atheist which sometimes annoys me
RalphGrogen1 4 years ago
YOUR WRONG
mahad239 4 years ago
About everything!!?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
After NinjaGirl said Pat Condell was "devoid of any human compassion whatsoever, any decency...in constant war against anyone who believes something different" I thought her peace video must be total BS. Those words are simple violence justifications. I'm surprised you recognized her moderate tolerance, and am glad you summarized the problems with her preferred route to peace. Kudos.
steve19683 4 years ago
Well she was harsh, but people say some pretty appalling things about muslims. It's give and take you know? I'm a fan of Pats, but he's a big boy:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Arm now painfull . Will comment more later .
123strauss 4 years ago
Ping me a PM and we pick this up with your MP3 suggestion. Please forgive my obsessive responding, but I'm stickler for the last word. Especially on my own threads:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Hmnn,. I have several answers to post, that repudiate all below statements , but will do later via PM
123strauss 4 years ago
People do evil things to each other . That does not negate God for a micro second . People have choice .
You should be glad God does not interfere > Because if he did , he would condemn you for your atheism . Be thankful God does not act as you wish .
123strauss 4 years ago
How does a child, bound, gagged, raped and then murdered have a choice? It's one thing to label alcohol abuse of drug taking as free will, but it's absurd to label the murder of one human by another an act of "free will", because on one side of the equation we are left with no choice but to die. Even flawed human societies do a better job of balancing intersecting free wills than "God". God can bite me. If he exists he is clearly a monster, who wants to worship a celestial thug?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I've formed the view it's liklier there is not even a generic God, much less one that matches the description of any of the major religions.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
You blame God for natural disasters !! How can you blame God ? You don't believe he exists > Sorry my friend , you're not getting away with that one . If you blame God for natural disasters , then you must acknowledge his existence . Which is it ??
123strauss 4 years ago
I merely use this as a figure of speech. I don't believe in God, but you do. The problem of natural disasters is not mine, it's yours and thats my point. Natural disasters that kill thousands or even <i>millions</I> in an instant square nicely with a pitiless universe, my position. Theists are left with an awful lot of explaining to do.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I disagree on the self assembling universe . However the universe was created , this was the way that God design it to be created . If the universe was created a different way altogether , you would still dispute it . You will dispute it no matter what .
123strauss 4 years ago
That may be true, but the universe is completely self assembling. Which weights the evidence heavily against God.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I'm tempted to have a discussion with you , but I have great pain through prolonged typing . If you care to send me via PM your email , I would record my thoughts via mp3 Interested ?
123strauss 4 years ago
Oh golly just saw this! Why not just make a vid and post it as private in youtube, if you don't want too much attention:-)? Send me a PM and let me know how you want to proceed, I'm happy to do the exchange of email if that suits you better.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Hi again. No web cam I'm afraid . If I can figure out how to record a voice recording , I'll maybe Pm You . . Tell me this , would you believe in God if the bible had no inconsistencies.? Do you casually dismiss the your entire reason for being , for existing , for thinking , because of ( what you perceive to be ) some literary contradictions ? Would you spend eternity in hell ... for that .
123strauss 4 years ago
What I mean is .. of all the reasons not to believe in God , some biblical inconsistencies is probably the worst reason ever . There are a million reasons why you should . Use these are guidance .
123strauss 4 years ago
What I meant to say was " Use these AS guidance "
123strauss 4 years ago
On the contrary, I think these are very good reasons indeed. In the first instance this raises the issue of God's failure to communicate in such a way as to communicate a clear cut revelation. Instead we have a confused hodge podge, and a blizzard of opinions and nothing that can reasonably be considered conclusive.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Take a simply issue like washing your hands before helping women give birth. It took a mere 50 years for this wisdom to become utterly pervasive globally. Because it was true, and it's efficacy could be measured and tracked in a totally compelling way. Yet 2000 years post Jesus, and 1400 years post mohammed, all the original questions are still open. Why? Because the whole foundation of the thing is built on speculation. I have video about this can't remember which one though.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Problems.
1) We live in a self assembling universe.
2) There is no clear compelling revelation.
3) Evil A. God cannot be all powerful and all good while allowing natural disasters to occur.
4) Evil B. God creates a world in which people do awful things to each other. This also precludes an all Good/Powerful/Sane God.
5) No evidence for any of it.
Note this is all prior to even getting into the details!!! Sorry I'm a lost cause:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Hmnn No you are not a lost cause , it is just that you are asking the wrong questions . You say God's failure to communicate ! Do you think that the God who created the universe, and us , cannot communicate . Does that question not appear utterly absurd to you ? Whatever God's reasons for not talking ( he is actually talking, but not in the way you want him to , or think he should ) whatever those reasons are , failure has nothing to do with it .
123strauss 4 years ago
ya what NephilmFree said!
slinger777 4 years ago
Ahhh. How worng this guy is. It is the refusal to accept religious doctrin that is the problem, not the doctrine. He's got his head screwed on backwards. He'll learn when he dies what the truth is. ; )
NephilimFree 4 years ago
The recourse of the truly despicable theist. If you don't have the guts to threaten someone directly, have your God do it for you. A "real" muslim would have threatened me himself. Standards <i>are</I> falling .... and see my video "the ethics of hell", it does a number on the utter peversity of a God that creates beings, <b>knowing</B> they will burn for ever.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
People chose between God and... other, whether that be no God or something evil. You've made yours - no God. The truth is most who claim to be agnostic or atheist DO believe in God, they just don't want him. So, they make the choice - no God, no "afterlife" with him. Yea, God knows people will chose. He sure does. :o
NephilimFree 4 years ago
Yet despite that foreknowledge, he creates humans anyway. Sounds pretty pointless really, and that is arguably the <i>kindest</I> thing one can say about it.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Would you rather to have never been born.?
123strauss 4 years ago
Certainly if only vague and poorly defined actions can protect from eternal torment, yes! However, thats not the issue, I don't <i>believe</I> this stuff, you can just as readily swap Jesus for Allah, Jehovah or Baal in all my comments. I'm just using the detail that religion provides, dizzying amounts of it (how does anyone <i>know</I>?), to illustrate how ethically and intellectually barren it is.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Ethically barren!! What! I'd say that the word of God is the last ( and only ) refuge of ethics in an ethically barren world .
123strauss 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon/Torah is your primary (or only!) source of ethics?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
It depends on how you define ethics > There are God's ethics and man's ethics .Man can live by his ethics but God's ethics supercedes them . ( assuming you believe in God )
123strauss 4 years ago
Well yes, I can follow that train of thought. The issue comes in how God communicate his ethics to you. How do you know what God approves/disapproves of?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I'm tempted to say the bible , but that gives you a get out clause . You will look up the first phrase or passage that has any kind of contradiction and use that as an example of Go'd non-existence . Am I right ?
123strauss 4 years ago
Close:-) Your awareness of the "trap" means you recognise the many faith wrecking icebergs of inconsistency that dot the ocean of literature we call the Bible. Actually though, I'm more interested in the ethical outrages in the Bible (stoning for Sabbath breakers for example), and how you work your way around those?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
If you cherry pick the good bits (love thy neighbour), but ditch the bad bits (slavery is part of life, deal with it), where do your moral intuitions come from?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Evolution has been prooven actually. Rather take a look at this site which contains pictures of amber which have closed in it insects which look exactly like the ones you can find now 100-500 millions years ago. So, no sign of evolution:
living-fossils com
armitage4 4 years ago
due to you're lack of knowledge Islam is not a religion therefore not considered a "stumbling block" like you say. Islam is a way of life. you are still invited. peace
murdererdon 4 years ago
This is hardly original. Christians say exactly the same sort of contrived nonsense. It's a religion, it's not real and it's dangerous.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Christians have never said that but in your case it must have been recent. if you don't have that correct understanding of something yes, it can be dangerous in your reasoning.
murdererdon 4 years ago
Dude, I WAS a Christian. This batshit insane talk is very familiar.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
your lying or you have been misguided while a Christian.
murdererdon 4 years ago
It seens that peace without religion is just as unlikely as peace based upon secular values. Whose secular values? What secular borders? The U.N. has had decades to bring peace to the world, It hasn't worked, and religion has less to do with it than the fight for resources. Religion may motivate people to fight, but it is almost never the underlying cause.
LothairLorraine 4 years ago
I actually don't think this is correct. Certainly religion is not the only cause of division and violence, but it is a primary motivator. As regards secular values, I imagine the values that the democracies of our planet share would be a good start. That also gets us to up over 50% of the planetary population.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Jesus Christ Himself said that the only religion is to take care of the widowed and poor. All this other so-called "religion" is man-made
ScottWest3000 4 years ago
faith: /feɪθ/ 2. belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (dictionary*reference*com). The dictionary don´t seem to me "very few people"!! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Having faith that a hypothesis would be substantiated is not remotely the same thing as claiming by faith that an hypothesis is substantiated. You are confusing faith in an outcome, with a faith claim that such and such is so.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
So sure, an individual scientist has "faith" that an hypothesis will have a give outcome, but no one else will accept their hypothesis on "faith", they must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
The religious would have us accept on "faith" that their specific mythical construct is real. I say prove it first beyond reasonable doubt, as this is conventionally understood, in an empirical sense. Can't do it? Still believe it? Thats faith, and you are welcome to it:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
It is worth repeating : Very few people would consider, for example, the assumptions that scientist make when studying quantum physics "faith". This is the persistent (and increasingly annoying) point you are making. That is of course nonsense, it is not faith in any conventional sense in which it is used. This is merely a crude semantic ploy to render all enquiry equal. Which it is clearly not.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
It is worth repeating: faith: /feɪθ/ 2. belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." (dictionary*reference*com). The dictionary don´t seem to me "very few people"!! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
I'm not disputing this definition of faith, just your "understanding" of it's application, and I have refuted your contentions to my absolute satisfaction. If you think by being a troll, I'm going to block you, I won't though:-) Is this your normal modus operandi? To persistently say the same tiresome thing in different ways? It's getting old.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Check... you made a totally general and unjustified afirmation on your video that I said I disagree, that "faith is an abdication...". I just explained you why I disagree and you understood saying now that you "don´t dispute". My "uderstanding" of it is your act of faith on this chat. Nothing was refuted more than what you imagined I said, really I said nothing much more about the subject. :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Faith as both you and I understand it, or at least as the dictionary defines it is <b>still an abdication of our responsibility as rational beings</B> when it comes to religious claims about God. LOL - you've obviously convinced yourself that you've won this argument. Simply restating the same false strawman won't do it:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Tsst! I didn´t won anything more that helping you being a bit more precise than in your video as I said when started this. It´s an improvment!. Why you put this in terms of "wining"?. What do you need?. Check the videos "Evidence Inside" in my channel, chap 2 is about the tricks your mind is playing you here :)
ablheza 4 years ago
I repeat in different ways till you understand, that´s patience not "troll". I´m not worried about blockings, just being polite and saying goodbye because I have work to do now. Till next!!
ablheza 4 years ago
Ciao.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
GLAD I FINALLY CONVINCED YOU OF WHAT I SAID STARTING THIS DIALOG: "So then, faith is NOT "an abdication of our responsabilities as rational being", may be is the base for it!.". Take care!! Till next! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Sure. Believe whatever you like,you're the faith based guy:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Remember... the prophet of "faith on skepticism". That´s true!! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Excellent vid/point Modest one... Peace...
Svendar 4 years ago
Scientists do argue about evolution..many disagree with evolution.
Butterlfies 4 years ago
Really? Can you name five, can you even name one?
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Facts may prove on both sides. It is what you believe, its not catholic thing even if it is. I think you are not good enough to go throw that! Do not worry. We talking here about instincts that controlling behaviors of human were. British woman does not raise me but I know what it means to be rising under pressures, people have to choose between being on the completely correct line or wrong line never in the meddle of things. If you did not fight those, you will get deeper.
whoody1 4 years ago
See...not talking with precision leads to this kind of mistake, if ones wants to be accurate must say "wars occurs, most of them by economics and power reasons, and religion may be an excuse". It´s not religion who can cause a war, only people can do that. And excuses for war are many, but causes are really few.
ablheza 4 years ago
Oh this is just a cheap dodge. The appeal to trancendence is a powerful motivator as 6000 years of recorded history attests. Religions may not be the only irrational ideologies to infect humanity, but they are among the most powerful of motivators. If there was genuine outbreak of universal rationality wars would all end tomorrow, religions just get in the damn way of that.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Can you prove that "the outbreak" will work or you are just making and act of faith?. Is this your religion?, believing in the "genuine outbreak of universal rationality" that will come to save us, seems a complicated name for "Mesiah" :). Agree that religion is a motivator, it keeps motivating you!!
ablheza 4 years ago
Not at all. As soon as europeans pooled sovreignity within the EU, the causes and rewards of war were undercut. This was a rational decision taken after the madness of WWII. There are many such examples. You consistently confuse blind faith, with the rational assessment of available information, and I think you are doing it on purpose because you just don't seem stupid enough to be doing it by accident. It's cheap con mans trick. If you don't want to be called on it, don't do it:-/
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
faith: Belief that is not based on proof. Just that, nothing more. All faith is based on "rational assessment of available information", you can discuss then the quality of the data you handle, but not discard faith as you did in your video. Again, just trying to be precise :). A religious person do not give up rationality (from his point of view), just consider useful data that you choose to dismiss.
ablheza 4 years ago
If you were genuinely interested in being precise, you wouldn't make these kinds of disingenous statements. Very many religious people, <i>even from their own point of view</I>, give up rationality entirely. Martin Luther for example <b>"To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."</B>, there is plenty more of that kind of self delusion bouncing around in theistic circles.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
An intelligent person may have trouble coming to a definitive conclusion about a generic Creator, but most of them know the details of their religion are self evident nonsense. Hence faith.
Are there any more instantly refuteable assertions you'd care to make:-)? You've got a few moves, but you're hardly coming up with anything that original:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I didn´t made any refutable assertion, just you agreed with me that faith is useful and used, and that God (without defining properties) can´t be denied. You didn´t refute that and I didn´t say practically anything more!. Don´t focus on "owning me" or finding moves. I´m not discussing with you nor trying to convince you of nothing. Just doing what I can to give more data widen your horizons! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
I don't think comparing rational enquiry to faith adds anything to the debate. As I've noted we must make basic assumptions about the world and our experience of it, and I mistakenly thought this was the direction you were heading in, and was eager to find common ground. To consider these propostions <b>genuinely equal</B> is disingenous and misleading. So I'd suggest you not do it, I consider it obviously dishonest, it adds nothing to your credibility and I'll call you on it every time.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Again, don´t focus on me as I don´t focus on you. Talk about my arguments if you want, my credibility or honesty are not on risk here :). Just see if you can follow the exercise. Remember, I´m the prophet of the "faith of skepticism"!.
ablheza 4 years ago
Think... isn´t that the most rational assessment with the available information that Martin Luther considered to be true from his point of view?. So... that is the same logic you use, just in another environment! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
No, and neither would Martin Luther. He actively suppressed his reason, and encouraged others to do so because it contradicted Gods word. A modern equivalent would be the creationist Ken Ham, who admits science contradicts creationism at every turn, but that "Gods word" takes priority.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Again, if you believe "Gods word" is true, IT´S A LOGICAL AND RATIONAL OPTION to give it priority!... so your are not giving up reason, just applying it in a different environment! :). All faith is based on "rational assessment of available information", so there is no difference between your faith (assumptions) or others.
ablheza 4 years ago
Of yes!! Which means the chap who thinks he's a poached egg, is exactly as justified in his belief as the rest of us. Uh no. I will not be buying this particular bridge today. If you genuinely believe this (and I am gradually coming to the horrified conclusion that you do), I suggest you see some kind of reality therapist. All world views are <i>not</I> equally valid, and we have objective ways to verify that.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Never said nothing is justified... just said that "All faith is based on "rational assessment of available information", so there is no difference between your faith (assumptions) or others". You are making wrong assumptions and projections here, perhaps the ones you made on other places are equally unsustainable. :)
ablheza 4 years ago
It is confused to state, as you have done above that <b>"there is no difference between your faith (assumptions) or others"</b>. Faith, as understood in most religions is unrecognizable as the artifact you describe, and rational choices are equally unrecognizable to those who favour that method over faith.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I never talk about religious faith in particular, just faith as defined on the dictionary. When you are comparing faith as differents you are focusing on results not on how it works :). It`s different one car from another just because one goes to London and the other to Washington?
ablheza 4 years ago
Very few people would consider, for example, the assumptions that scientist make when studying quantum physics "faith". This is the persistent (and increasingly annoying) point you are making. That is of course nonsense, it is not faith in any conventional sense in which it is used. This is merely a crude semantic ploy to render all enquiry equal. Which it is clearly not.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
The implication of your position, is that all world views are equally valid. I can only restate that this is obviously not the case, and clear nonsense. Some positions are more grounded in observable reality than others, and most religions are free floating from observable reality <i>altogether</I>. This is the understanding of faith I am disputing as useful, if that helps? For the record, I consider simply restating positions that I have explained I disagree with and why, as trolldom.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Ah! you are rewriting your comments too many times... so it´s evident that your are thinking on this... keep on!
ablheza 4 years ago
LOL, lets not read conspiracy into typo correction:-)
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Not read any conspiracy :). Just applied logic to evidence I have, made a projection and concluded something I believe now... that your are thinking on what you are writing... and now reality (you) confirmed that is true so I don´t believe, I almos know!. JUST SCIENCE WORKING!! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
As you can see in my video response I am a skeptic that values faith a lot more than you :). Just curious, something to say about it?
ablheza 4 years ago
Actually, I had tremendous trouble following it:-( The sound quality is very poor, I loved the accent though:-) I'll give it another try.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
Then read the "visual aids" included :). Being short, faith is used everywhere and is used a lot in science. If you can believe in axioms, why you can´t believe in other thing?. So in spite of what you want to believe, you are also a believer!! :)
ablheza 4 years ago
Will this is no doubt true. One must assign probabilities to those things in which one has "faith". I assign a very low probablity to the existence of God, and I think I have very good reasons for that.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
So then, faith is NOT "an abdication of our responsabilities as rational being", may be is the base for it!. There are many other afirmations as this in your video that are all "half trues", as in this case just searching for practical examples will help you find them.
ablheza 4 years ago
Oh nonsense. <i>Religious</I> faith is a clear abdication of our responsibilities, I shall have to take a <i>much</I> firmer line if you are going to play word games:-/ Semantics do little to improve the probability that Allah, Jesus or God exists.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
What you are talking about are assumptions, which are certainly required in the more esoteric areas of Science. Assumptions, probability calculation and reason have nothing to add to the statement "Jesus died for my sins". Or "Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse". If fact little disgusts me more than the kind of bait and switch you just pulled. I'm downright pissed.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago