God doesn't stop hurricanes? Why PRAY then? It won't do any good. God is helpless. Or is he just stubborn and spiteful?
God is as flawed as those who prop Him up as their perpetual excuse to do bad things to other people. God signs off on all "notes" and certificates, granting His slef-serving followers superiority over all who don't share their particular brand of "faith".
Religion is a God damn FRAUD. It's a cancer on society and it's time to cut it out!
@timelesskoontah I (like tens of millions) don't believe in God. Atheism is a natural part of human evolution.
Most people lose their God delusions by the time they learn to tie their shoes. Others take longer. It is quite likely that you will laugh at what you're writing today in a few more years (or sooner?).
There is no law to stop you from believing in fairy tales. There is also no law to make me go back to the nonsense I once bought into. Is that OK with you? Thanks.
More evidence that two hands at work do more good than a thousand clasped in prayer.
It's funny how God always sides with the ones invoking Him when declaring that OTHERS should suffer and make needless sacrifices. He always holds His preachers blameless while OTHERS need to make changes.
Christianity is like a gambling casino where the house can't lose. Disgusting.
I don't know if he realizes it, but I think Sam may have just spawned a new religion: Angelinaism. It definitely sounds more hopeful than Christianity. Christians, if they win, get to go to church forever. Angelinans, if they win, get to screw Angelina after she trounces the devil Brad Pitt!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@tuzmor Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
@tuzmor Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
The Bible says God slaughtered babies to "make a point". The Bible says Noah and his family preached for 50 years with ZERO conversions. The Bible says God got mad when people built Tower of Babel, but God has no beef with people who went to the Moon.
Bible is pathetic series of horrible children's story, full of porn and contradictions. Bible is as weak as it's self-serving, power hungry authors.
@SynchroTotal yeah those apostles were basking in millions when they were slaughtered all over the roman empire, im sure when mark was dragged around alexandria till he was torn to peices the last thing he thought about was the brand new flatscreen he was gonna put up in his living room. the bibles books have stories but fairy tales end with "they lived happilly ever after". life is gritty, tough, mean and thats the theme in the books. mankind=mankinds plauge dont scapegoat chris-oops religion
@SynchroTotal God doesn't stop hurricanes etc because that is not his job. Its our job to not have any lust in our heart. People say well what is the point of God if he won't fix anything but the answer is he is coming back to fix everything. I believe all of these earthquakes have served as warning. God will only save those worth saving. In other words those who have love/humility in their hearts and not lust/pride/arrogance.
Poor analogy by Sam Harris. Because, it is possible that one can marry Jolie. After all, 2 people in this world have already married her. So the chance, although infinitesimal, is still not zero. For example, if you asked told Brad Pitt (or any of his friends/family )when he was a young boy, or even when he was a struggling actor, that he would marry one of the most beautiful woman in the world, people would say "impossible". Well, it was possible. So, is it actually possible "God" exists?
You completely missed the point and lost yourself in what is an analogy - but an analogy is exactly that - something similar but 100%. An analogy is used to make an idea simple to grasp.
Don't lose yourself in the detail of an analogy by arguing that it is not 100% the real thing because if it were then there would be no use for an anology.
@hofifut Sooo....in the same mindset...you are saying that it is an infinitesimal chance that a god exists...right? It might be true...but it is not likely... WOW...I am ATHEIST...and I agree with you. Be careful using logic on an un-logical topic. It works both ways.
@hofifut The point of the analogy was not the impossibility of the event, but explaining what kinds of justification we need for beliefs. He was demonstrating that the sanity of those beliefs hinge on the truth of the claim in question(God/destined to marry Angelina) and is independent of all the other nonsense about the belief making him a better person etc. Those simply are not reasons to hold them and would be a side effect of the person being completely delusional.
@hofifut If you were to take anything with you back to the original problem, it would have to be the creepy mindset that person got due to his false belief and map it to all the antisocial stuff people would do if they really followed OT or the Qur'an exactly.
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
@nedladdy This debate took place in Puebla, Mexico and yes the boxing ring is a bit tacky but who cares it's totally awesome to have all these great minds come to our country!
you don't 'believe' in evolution, there's is an enormous amount of evidence and facts to suggest a very provable thesis; belief is accepting something you are told by someone else and cannot prove physically since religious 'experiences' are all personal and psychosomantic. evolution is right there in the constant adaptation of single-celled organisms and mutating viruses; 'God' is there in a book written by some superstitious people thousands of years ago
@MultiGreenpen p.s. you can say that you're an atheist and you can even believe that but at the end of the day you're just trying to say that what we think and what we believe are different... when that isn't the case at all.
you need to brush up on your vocabulary because you are lying to yourself if you actually believe that you can think something without believing it.
@MultiGreenpen atheism declares that there is no God while agnosticism just says "i don't know". one makes a claim to truth that they cannot prove (atheism) while the other just makes a claim to truth that they simply do not know the truth (agnosticism).
you can say that they mean something other than that but this would only highlight the fact that you use words that you don't understand. read the dictionary.
@anonazero "atheism declares that there is no God while agnosticism "
You are either an atheist or a theist, there is no third option.
(a)Theism tells you something about your beliefs. (a)gnosticism tells you something about the level of certainty of your beliefs/claims. One is a qualifier of the other.
agnosticism is the belief that we can't know if there is a God
theism is the believe that there is a God.
all of these are claims to knowledge. one claims that there is no God, the next claims we can't know, and the last claims there is a God. these ideas are mutually exclusive, therefore, unable to be mixed.
@anonazero "agnosticism is the belief that we can't know if there is a God" Indeed, but that doesn't say anything about your position concerning your belief if there is one.
Hence:
agnostic atheist = I don't believe in a god
agnostic theist = I believe in a god.
Contrary, gnosticism is a position of knowledge, but it agains says nothing about your position on the existance of god.
@anonazero "all of these are claims to knowledge" No. One is a claim concerning knowledge and the other is a claim concerning your position on the existance of gods.
When you call yourself an agnostic in context of theistic claims, when only knows that you claim to not know for sure if gods exist or not. But it doesn't tell us anything on wheter you believe gods exist or not. You need to label yourself theist or atheist for that to be known.
@ScientificBob thats where you're wrong. agnosticism is claiming that you don't or can't know, therefore, if you choose one way or the other (atheist/theist) then you're no longer agnostic. agnostic literally means ignoramus.
for example, i am a christian theist. i believe that God is real and that His name is Jesus Christ.
there is no such thing as an atheist. everyone knows God exists, some folks just lie to themselves.
@anonazero "agnosticism is claiming that you don't or can't know," Indeed. But that doesn't say anything about what you BELIEVE. There is a difference between belief and knowledge.
"i believe that God is real and that His name is Jesus Christ." you believe it, but you don't KNOW it.
@anonazero No truly rational person can make the claim that god does not exist, just as we cant claim there isn't an invisible dragon that lives at the center of the sun. There just isn't any evidence to believe either proposition. The bible along with the koran are filled with commandments that are actively rejected by the majority of their adherents. Slavery, genocide, the murder of your own children if they are disobedient are all condoned in these books by the creator yet most reject them.
@anonazero maybe you should read the bible before you defend what's in it...
the bible says on many occasions that people should be stoned for apostasy.
it also says that if a man rapes a woman who isn't married, then he must pay 50 pieces of silver and marry the raped girl. he also is never allowed to divorce his rape victim.
these are only two of the myriad acts of utter violence depicted in the bible.
@anonazero that's not true. Look it up. Agnostic and theist/atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.
You could, for example, be an Agnostic Theist, being someone who believes got exists but doesn't claim to KNOW a god exists. Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on one's believes about what they can know absolutely to be true.
@anonazero I've consulted the dictionary. They are certainly not mutually exclusive and you are a fool to say so.
I've been studying philosophy for 3 years.. No professional philosopher thinks they are mutually exclusive because they understand the definitions of the terms.. I'm not debating with you, or discussing, I'm telling you..
Im telling you they are mutually exclusive so you wont argue about it anymore and make an ass out of yourself. Go look it up if you don't believe me, I dont care
@SHIBBYiPANDA i don't care if you have a doctorate in philosophy. atheism is the belief that there is no God. agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know one way or the other. you need to study logic more.
@anonazero look, just saying that you don't believe there is a god isn't the same as saying you think you KNOW a god doesn't exists. Gnosticism is a position on knowledge.. If you believe a god doesn't exist, but you also believe you could possibly be wrong and you can't know for sure that no gods exist, then you are, by definition, an agnostic atheist..
If you believe a god exists, but you think you can't know for sure, then you are an agnostic theist..
@SHIBBYiPANDA the claim to knowledge is exactly the same. well, for people that are willing to be intellectually honest. to say you don't believe something is true you're making a claim to knowledge. agnosticism makes a claim to ignorance. where the theist and atheist differ is that the atheist would have to have a total knowledge of everything to actually back up his claim and the theist needs only one experience with one being ONCE to validate his claim.
@SHIBBYiPANDA the only mistake being made here is your reluctance to accept the simple fact claiming ignorance (agnosticism) and claiming knowledge (atheism) are mutually exclusive terms.
you can't reconcile the two. its like saying you're a little bit pregnant.
but at the end of the say all atheists and agnostics are liars suppressing the truth because they all know God is real, that they will be judged, and so they busy themselves in the meantime.
@anonazero well atheism ISN'T a knowledge claim.. It's a statement of belief which is not the same thing as absolute knowledge..
It's the difference between saying "I believe Australia exists" and "I know Australia exists"
and why would atheists deny God's existence if they knew He existed? Christianity doesn't require anything for acceptance into Heaven except acceptance of sins and Jesus' sacrifice, repentance, and belief. You really think they'd choose eternal Hell over Heaven? Get real!!!
@SHIBBYiPANDA here's what you're saying: an atheist believes what they believe NOT because of evidence but because they prefer it. that is the very definition of wishful thinking and while i agree with you, claiming that you believe something is either implying that something to be TRUE or that you're a fool for blindly believing it.
why deny God's existence?
that one's easy. they hate God and choose to try to ignore all of creation screaming out His Glory.
@SHIBBYiPANDA christianity requires nothing. God requires payment for YOUR personal active and passive sin. someone has to pay. people that go to hell CHOOSE to go to hell. yes, they choose it.
people don't go to heaven because they simply made a choice to get out of one line and get into another. people go to heaven because of the blood bought redemption made possible by Jesus Christ CHOOSING to come and pay the debt of sinners. therefore, all who trust in Him will be saved. (Romans 3:25-26)
@SHIBBYiPANDA people choose hell because they hate God and the more God shows Himself to those people the more they will hate Him. so the people in hell never repent, they just continue growing in hatred for Jesus.
Why would God care if anyone hates Him? And if God loves everyone, why wouldn't He give the people who didn't want to be near Him somewhere nice to go instead of a lake of fire? That sounds like something an angry toddler would do.
@SHIBBYiPANDA first off, who says God loves everyone? psalm 5:5 says he hates all who do iniquity.
secondly, the reason hell exists is because God being perfectly just must, by virtue of who He is, punish sin. hell is just the wrath of God. you don't understand why you deserve hell because thats how evil you are and you don't know how evil you are because you don't know how perfectly righteous and good God is.
@anonazero Yes, I do. You have to take into account both the intent, the extent of the effect of the crime, and the offenders mental state, and try to get the punishment to equal that.
@SHIBBYiPANDA okay, so here's a hypothetical. a guy walks down the street and kicks a bum that is just being a bum because he just doesn't like the guy. whats going to happen to him? not much (if anything).
same guy, same street, and he kicks the president of the U S of A. what happens? he's at least going to prison if not the morgue. what changed?
the crime? nope, a guy kicked a guy for the same motive (intent).
the DEGREE of offense changed based on the stature of the person offended.
@SHIBBYiPANDA if a homeless man is kicked nobody really cares. if you kick the president of the united states you'll be lucky to not die... but the president is just another man. another fallible, sinful, broken, corrupt man...
you haven't committed a crime against a bum... not even the president... you (like all men) are guilty of treason against an infinitely holy, righteous, perfect King. therefore, what you (and i) deserve is a punishment of infinite scope... thus... wrath forever. AKA hell
@anonazero first off, you wouldn't be killed for kicking the president. You would probably get charged with assault and post bail.
Second, kicking the president is a big deal because hurting him hurts an ENTIRE COUNTRY.
Third, just because God is infinite INDIVIDUAL, that doesn't mean it would be just to punish someone infinitely for offending him. Justice is equal treatment between parties. There is no such thing as an infinite crime. So an infinite punishment is always unjustified.
@SHIBBYiPANDA 1. its a FELONY at least and probably treason. try again.
2. it is a big deal but it doesn't hurt the country. most people here would laugh, nobody would care. the courts, however, would care. the LAW cares because the position of the presidency carries much weight.
3. you're just making one assertion after another throwing logic out the window.
you're too emotional. stop. breathe. think. post. that's the order.
@anonazero 1. TREASON??? Haha, no, you try again. Find me one law source that says the kicking the president is considered treason. That's just a blind assertion, as far as I'm concern. What kind of kick are you talking about? I'm thinking like a casual kick of the shins. No way you'd get treason charges for THAT!
2. By, hurt the country, I mean that kicking the president reflects badly on the nation. It'd be kinda of a tacky thing to do.
@SHIBBYiPANDA "Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you."
@1tabligh So that means you only go aright for the good of you're own soul, that makes a good man following islam, good only in the persuit of a prize, that being heaven. That doesn't put too much weight to morals, or worship as it is for selfish gain.
@misfitstattoo By doing good to others (souls) and because God deserves to be thank weather paradise or Hell.
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@moopism Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@moopism Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@1tabligh And that offsets the demand that we accept your faith as true? At best you have an argument for agnosticism or apatheism, but a positive proof of god? I don't think so.
@moopism Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@1tabligh I could accept your logic if not for the fact you've already established you have a pony in the race. As it is, it seems you are trying to reduce the scientific method to the same level of fiction as mythology. I'm not buying it.
@moopism If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
@1tabligh You are confusing skepticism towards an unfounded, unprovable claim with outright rejection, and generalizing that extreme position with all who reject adherence to a faith's tenets.
@moopism We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
@1tabligh Was all that pointless verbiage supposed to mean something? Redefining what the scientific method means is the most ridiculous and sorry attempt you've made yet. You still haven't explained how you get from that to 'god did it'.
@moopism When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
@1tabligh "a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;"
Uhm, hate to rain on your parade sunshine, but if polls indicate that 90%+ of scientists are in fact atheists, then your 'considerable number' isn't very considerable. That's how math works.
You can grind your mental axe all you want, but in the end you're still a dullard for god.
@moopism Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
@anglaismoyen Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
@1tabligh They don't learn their functions. They perform functions by a completely blind process of chemical reactions. It's not always precise and neat, and is quite often wasteful and inaccurate (see autoimmune disease and allergies for an example), although I will give you, overall the living body (of any organism) is an amazing thing.
I do not agree that complexity necessitates a designer, no. And even if one concedes to this idea, what use is it? Can we make any scientific progess with it?
@anglaismoyen What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
@anglaismoyen Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
@anglaismoyen How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
@1tabligh I never said it was a contradiction, but by the rules of Occam's razor, when unnecessary or unprovable hypotheses can be 'shaved' from a theory, it is usually the case that it is best to do so.
@anglaismoyen Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
@anglaismoyen Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh "One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences"
And that's just as true concerning belief in unicorns, bigfoot, magic beans, ghosts, any and all god myths, and snake oil salesmen of every stripe.
If any real God(s) were found by a leap of faith, all faith would lead to the same God(s). They don't.
@1tabligh I've never seen my stomach digest a steak...does that mean I presumptuously deny the existence of little green men in my digestive system? Of course not.
Omniscience is contradictory to the fact we have free will. Omnipotence is contradictory to logical analysis : an omnipotent being cannot make a being more powerful than itself, ergo, omnipotence cannot exist.
@TheHigherVoltage May be you have admitted the *probability* of a creator, you will, I hope, be convinced to admit the certainty. From *flat denial* you may have come to *doubt*, from that perhaps to *faith.*
Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of.
@1tabligh #1 nothing is certain, there's only degrees of probability. #2 I've never 'flatly denied' the existence of real God(s). #3 faith (without evidence) is just a socially acceptable word for self-delusion.
If you claim, with certainty, that what you take on faith is true, you are delusional.
How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of?
And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.
@TheHigherVoltage So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have *no* evidence.
@1tabligh I have no doubt that Yahweh is as fake as Zeus, AmenRa, Ptah, Allah, Ganeshu, and all other godcult myths I've studied so far. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not real Creator(s) exist.
@TheHigherVoltage Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
I did not claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims of "Santa Claus" or anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
If you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
If someone claims that you are a Santa Claus, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
The one who claims that you are a Santa Claus is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
@1tabligh "The one who claims that you are a Santa Claus is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact."
I absolutely agree.
"What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?"
Where is there any valid evidence that our universe has anything supernatural about it?
@TheHigherVoltage To specifically answer your question "What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?" - that would be all valid, testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence to date.
So once again, what proof exists to substantiate your belief that anything supernatural exists?
@anglaismoyen Darwinism does not advance society. I know alot of people say well this Dna this or that cell that but that is biology not Darwinism. Darwinism itself is still an unproven theory and wouldn't exist without implied biology to back it up but you cannot say it is biology because biology is a science that can be repeatedly demonstrated using the scientific method.
@JamesRideout123 Darwinism or evolutionary theory is even accepted by the catholic church. Where do you come off denying a concept you dont understand? "Implied" biology...lets think about this. I had a science teacher once. His ring fingers were longer than those of the rest of his hands (true story). He had a son, who also carried this trait. If by some chance, in a world where we werent so advanced and tried to maintain human life, this helped them survive and reproduce, it would be common.
@theknowbeing Its accepted by certain people within the Catholic Church, it is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a whole and that is only because those ministers who say you can have it both ways are part of the corruption that has gone on in the Church. The Bible says that the Church at the endtimes would be lukewarm neither hot nor cold for Jesus.
@JamesRideout123 Really? How many times have all these xtian "mathematicians" said that the "end times" are here? The church was corrupted AT THE BEGINNING because its all a fraud and used to control people by fear. Why does god need money? "Pope John Paul II Embraces Evolution!" is a headline. Look it up. Evolution can be proven by the genome project, by the closeness of genetics of species, and they can trace them back to common ancestors. Your "god" fantasy is dead. Grow up.
@theknowbeing The Church will always have corruption in it until our Lord returns and purges the whole damn thing. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were persecuted for not submitting to Church dogma back a few hundred years ago but not all Churchgoers are like that or evil its just the douchebags that run some of them. I just don't like how the media spins all the bad things about Roman Catholics and never any of the good things they've done like charity don'tyouagree
@JamesRideout123 Atheists do charity work as well, and not because they believe some invisible man in the sky wants them to. Here's my question: with all the science that you use today, from medicine to computers, why deny it when it comes to disproving outdated superstitions? It obviously works, and praying doesnt. Statistically, its like flipping a coin. And if gods so "awesome," how come he gave us the appendix, which does nothing except make people sick occasionally?
@JamesRideout123 In Luke 19:12,14,15,27 it says "And it came to pass that, when he was returned, having received the kingdom,... But those mine enemies,
who would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me."
Next time you get an infection, don't take antibiotics. All modern antibiotics are developed through understanding evolution. Just pray to whatever God you're convinced exists, and you can die soon, convinced you'll meet them.
"you cannot say it is biology because biology is a science that can be repeatedly demonstrated using the scientific method." You have a very warped understanding of biology and evolution.
@TheHigherVoltage Biology is not Darwinism and advances in Biology do not mean advances in Darwinism. Darwinism is the idea that an animal can give birth to a different kind of animal which has nothing to do with real Science like Biology.
@JamesRideout123 "Biology is not Darwinism" - Modern biology is founded in Darwinism, specifically the Theory of Evolution. It's the framework in which all biological life verifiably operates.
"Darwinism is the idea that an animal can give birth to a different kind of animal"
LOL.no it's not. You've never even read his book have you :/
Why do you criticize something you clearly don't understand? Is it because the guy you give money to on Sundays tells you non-sense like this?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh You haven't a leg to stand on, first of all you haven't rebuked my argument because you can't as it is solid logic. Secondly it is the religious like you that is delusional, us rational thinkers and science has proven the quran and the old and new testements to be false. We don't worship religion, to say so is stupid, it is you pathetic people who bow on a matt towards a big stone in the middle east, how stupid. M-theory suggests that there are 11 dimensions.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@misfitstattoo Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
poor people
jenn23love 1 day ago
I wonder if Angelina Jolie has seen this video and creeps her out.
rubberbaby00 1 month ago
the atheism of god
2rainmalt 1 month ago
God doesn't stop hurricanes? Why PRAY then? It won't do any good. God is helpless. Or is he just stubborn and spiteful?
God is as flawed as those who prop Him up as their perpetual excuse to do bad things to other people. God signs off on all "notes" and certificates, granting His slef-serving followers superiority over all who don't share their particular brand of "faith".
Religion is a God damn FRAUD. It's a cancer on society and it's time to cut it out!
SynchroTotal 1 month ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@timelesskoontah I (like tens of millions) don't believe in God. Atheism is a natural part of human evolution.
Most people lose their God delusions by the time they learn to tie their shoes. Others take longer. It is quite likely that you will laugh at what you're writing today in a few more years (or sooner?).
There is no law to stop you from believing in fairy tales. There is also no law to make me go back to the nonsense I once bought into. Is that OK with you? Thanks.
SynchroTotal 1 month ago
why is there a mini boxing ring lol
runeoner 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence that two hands at work do more good than a thousand clasped in prayer.
It's funny how God always sides with the ones invoking Him when declaring that OTHERS should suffer and make needless sacrifices. He always holds His preachers blameless while OTHERS need to make changes.
Christianity is like a gambling casino where the house can't lose. Disgusting.
SynchroTotal 2 months ago
Sam always has the BEST analogies! Sam, You hit it out of the park with that one!
AnnaMishel 2 months ago
0:22 John Malkovich
TheSkupkake 2 months ago
I don't know if he realizes it, but I think Sam may have just spawned a new religion: Angelinaism. It definitely sounds more hopeful than Christianity. Christians, if they win, get to go to church forever. Angelinans, if they win, get to screw Angelina after she trounces the devil Brad Pitt!
ChipArgyle 2 months ago
@tuzmor The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories. "
Isn't that the definition of religion?
moopism 2 months ago
@tuzmor Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@tuzmor Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
The Bible says God slaughtered babies to "make a point". The Bible says Noah and his family preached for 50 years with ZERO conversions. The Bible says God got mad when people built Tower of Babel, but God has no beef with people who went to the Moon.
Bible is pathetic series of horrible children's story, full of porn and contradictions. Bible is as weak as it's self-serving, power hungry authors.
Bible = man made. Religion = mankind's plague.
Got FACTS or just more Bible bull shit?
SynchroTotal 3 months ago 37
@SynchroTotal It's not FULL of porn.
eggertstwart 2 months ago
@SynchroTotal yeah those apostles were basking in millions when they were slaughtered all over the roman empire, im sure when mark was dragged around alexandria till he was torn to peices the last thing he thought about was the brand new flatscreen he was gonna put up in his living room. the bibles books have stories but fairy tales end with "they lived happilly ever after". life is gritty, tough, mean and thats the theme in the books. mankind=mankinds plauge dont scapegoat chris-oops religion
tksmurf 2 months ago
@SynchroTotal God doesn't stop hurricanes etc because that is not his job. Its our job to not have any lust in our heart. People say well what is the point of God if he won't fix anything but the answer is he is coming back to fix everything. I believe all of these earthquakes have served as warning. God will only save those worth saving. In other words those who have love/humility in their hearts and not lust/pride/arrogance.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
Sergio Sarmiento in the back!!
Jagonomic 3 months ago
Wow, and you think you are doing such a good job of destroying religon too. It'd be cute if it it wasn't so poorly thought out and presented...
nicodemous52 3 months ago
Why is no one laughing? Maybe the translators weren't even translating but just making shit up.
mapmanic 3 months ago
Poor analogy by Sam Harris. Because, it is possible that one can marry Jolie. After all, 2 people in this world have already married her. So the chance, although infinitesimal, is still not zero. For example, if you asked told Brad Pitt (or any of his friends/family )when he was a young boy, or even when he was a struggling actor, that he would marry one of the most beautiful woman in the world, people would say "impossible". Well, it was possible. So, is it actually possible "God" exists?
hofifut 3 months ago
@hofifut
You completely missed the point and lost yourself in what is an analogy - but an analogy is exactly that - something similar but 100%. An analogy is used to make an idea simple to grasp.
Don't lose yourself in the detail of an analogy by arguing that it is not 100% the real thing because if it were then there would be no use for an anology.
Gee, some people!
FranklyLate 3 months ago
@hofifut Sooo....in the same mindset...you are saying that it is an infinitesimal chance that a god exists...right? It might be true...but it is not likely... WOW...I am ATHEIST...and I agree with you. Be careful using logic on an un-logical topic. It works both ways.
Mikedogg13666 3 months ago
@hofifut The point of the analogy was not the impossibility of the event, but explaining what kinds of justification we need for beliefs. He was demonstrating that the sanity of those beliefs hinge on the truth of the claim in question(God/destined to marry Angelina) and is independent of all the other nonsense about the belief making him a better person etc. Those simply are not reasons to hold them and would be a side effect of the person being completely delusional.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@hofifut If you were to take anything with you back to the original problem, it would have to be the creepy mindset that person got due to his false belief and map it to all the antisocial stuff people would do if they really followed OT or the Qur'an exactly.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
I was a little shocked at the stony reaction of the audience to his humorous example, and I think maybe he was as well.
FrogmortonHotchkiss 4 months ago 3
@Superage: no, rescue you from your mind blindness.
thekaxmax 4 months ago
qeneva1999 I agree hilarious. These atheist are desperate to convert people. Not going to work.
Superageofreason 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Voiderify 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Voiderify 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Voiderify 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Voiderify 5 months ago
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Voiderify 5 months ago
Nice... as with most religious arguments, the fallacies are immediately obvious once you replace the word "God" with anything else, like loch ness monster or big foot.
This analogy was extremely effective in pointing out the fallacy in wishful thinking.
Voiderify 5 months ago
ANDJELIJA O ANDJELIJA!
SoferMisko87 5 months ago
It seems like he is linking 'believing in god' with religion!!!! U can be believe in god and not be religious.
yinka220987 5 months ago
@yinka220987 "U can be believe in god and not be religious." No, you cannot. That's like saying that you could be dead and healthy at the same time.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
A debate in a boxing ring, oh really.
No, no don't tell, a show made in the US
nedladdy 5 months ago 10
@nedladdy this debate is not in Amerika actually Lol.
Schutzstaffel23 5 months ago
@Schutzstaffel23 oops ! mmmm re-group, re-think and and -rephrase,
Goes to show how heavy their influence is !!!! lol
cheers
nedladdy 5 months ago
@nedladdy ha cheers man.
Schutzstaffel23 5 months ago
@nedladdy i saw the same stuff in spain, a debate between dawkins and some other jesus guy
Serpico261 5 months ago
@nedladdy This debate took place in Puebla, Mexico and yes the boxing ring is a bit tacky but who cares it's totally awesome to have all these great minds come to our country!
MercenaryBlackWaterz 5 months ago 30
@nedladdy
Brazil actually
omegavalerius 4 months ago
@nedladdy Yeah, it's over the top, still a lot of people showed up, that's quite something compared to debates we get to view here.
msh1044 4 months ago
@nedladdy mexico, and boxing isn't a very popular sport in the U.S.
manonthemount 3 months ago
you don't 'believe' in evolution, there's is an enormous amount of evidence and facts to suggest a very provable thesis; belief is accepting something you are told by someone else and cannot prove physically since religious 'experiences' are all personal and psychosomantic. evolution is right there in the constant adaptation of single-celled organisms and mutating viruses; 'God' is there in a book written by some superstitious people thousands of years ago
madjack18 5 months ago
it's called a false positive
gfdadefuin 5 months ago
"Beliefs are not like clothing."
Callirgos1 5 months ago
Even if we were to grant them the benefit arguments that is purely subjective and doesnt prove gods existence at all.
gulbirk 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen thats weird seeing as how i'm quoting the dictionary to you people.
anonazero 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen nah, you don't get to do that... you need to read a dictionary.
anonazero 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen p.s. you can say that you're an atheist and you can even believe that but at the end of the day you're just trying to say that what we think and what we believe are different... when that isn't the case at all.
you need to brush up on your vocabulary because you are lying to yourself if you actually believe that you can think something without believing it.
that is just insanity.
anonazero 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen atheism declares that there is no God while agnosticism just says "i don't know". one makes a claim to truth that they cannot prove (atheism) while the other just makes a claim to truth that they simply do not know the truth (agnosticism).
you can say that they mean something other than that but this would only highlight the fact that you use words that you don't understand. read the dictionary.
anonazero 6 months ago
@anonazero "atheism declares that there is no God while agnosticism "
You are either an atheist or a theist, there is no third option.
(a)Theism tells you something about your beliefs. (a)gnosticism tells you something about the level of certainty of your beliefs/claims. One is a qualifier of the other.
Gnostic theist = there is a god
agnostic theist= i believe in god
agnostic atheist = i don't believe in god
gnostic theist = there is no god
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@ScientificBob thats just incorrect.
atheism is the belief that there is no God
agnosticism is the belief that we can't know if there is a God
theism is the believe that there is a God.
all of these are claims to knowledge. one claims that there is no God, the next claims we can't know, and the last claims there is a God. these ideas are mutually exclusive, therefore, unable to be mixed.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero "agnosticism is the belief that we can't know if there is a God" Indeed, but that doesn't say anything about your position concerning your belief if there is one.
Hence:
agnostic atheist = I don't believe in a god
agnostic theist = I believe in a god.
Contrary, gnosticism is a position of knowledge, but it agains says nothing about your position on the existance of god.
hence:
Gnostic atheist: i know there are no gods
gnostic theist: i know there is a god.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@anonazero "all of these are claims to knowledge" No. One is a claim concerning knowledge and the other is a claim concerning your position on the existance of gods.
When you call yourself an agnostic in context of theistic claims, when only knows that you claim to not know for sure if gods exist or not. But it doesn't tell us anything on wheter you believe gods exist or not. You need to label yourself theist or atheist for that to be known.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@ScientificBob thats where you're wrong. agnosticism is claiming that you don't or can't know, therefore, if you choose one way or the other (atheist/theist) then you're no longer agnostic. agnostic literally means ignoramus.
for example, i am a christian theist. i believe that God is real and that His name is Jesus Christ.
there is no such thing as an atheist. everyone knows God exists, some folks just lie to themselves.
anonazero 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anonazero "agnosticism is claiming that you don't or can't know," Indeed. But that doesn't say anything about what you BELIEVE. There is a difference between belief and knowledge.
"i believe that God is real and that His name is Jesus Christ." you believe it, but you don't KNOW it.
Hence, you are an agnostic theist.
ScientificBob 4 months ago
@anonazero No truly rational person can make the claim that god does not exist, just as we cant claim there isn't an invisible dragon that lives at the center of the sun. There just isn't any evidence to believe either proposition. The bible along with the koran are filled with commandments that are actively rejected by the majority of their adherents. Slavery, genocide, the murder of your own children if they are disobedient are all condoned in these books by the creator yet most reject them.
250garbear 4 months ago
@250garbear you're confusing the koran with the bible or just a liar.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero maybe you should read the bible before you defend what's in it...
the bible says on many occasions that people should be stoned for apostasy.
it also says that if a man rapes a woman who isn't married, then he must pay 50 pieces of silver and marry the raped girl. he also is never allowed to divorce his rape victim.
these are only two of the myriad acts of utter violence depicted in the bible.
like i said... you should read before you defend.
MrBR420 4 months ago
@anonazero that's not true. Look it up. Agnostic and theist/atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.
You could, for example, be an Agnostic Theist, being someone who believes got exists but doesn't claim to KNOW a god exists. Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on one's believes about what they can know absolutely to be true.
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA actually they are. consult the dictionary and the rules of logic.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero I've consulted the dictionary. They are certainly not mutually exclusive and you are a fool to say so.
I've been studying philosophy for 3 years.. No professional philosopher thinks they are mutually exclusive because they understand the definitions of the terms.. I'm not debating with you, or discussing, I'm telling you..
Im telling you they are mutually exclusive so you wont argue about it anymore and make an ass out of yourself. Go look it up if you don't believe me, I dont care
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA i don't care if you have a doctorate in philosophy. atheism is the belief that there is no God. agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know one way or the other. you need to study logic more.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero look, just saying that you don't believe there is a god isn't the same as saying you think you KNOW a god doesn't exists. Gnosticism is a position on knowledge.. If you believe a god doesn't exist, but you also believe you could possibly be wrong and you can't know for sure that no gods exist, then you are, by definition, an agnostic atheist..
If you believe a god exists, but you think you can't know for sure, then you are an agnostic theist..
It's a mistake lots of people make.
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA the claim to knowledge is exactly the same. well, for people that are willing to be intellectually honest. to say you don't believe something is true you're making a claim to knowledge. agnosticism makes a claim to ignorance. where the theist and atheist differ is that the atheist would have to have a total knowledge of everything to actually back up his claim and the theist needs only one experience with one being ONCE to validate his claim.
anonazero 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA the only mistake being made here is your reluctance to accept the simple fact claiming ignorance (agnosticism) and claiming knowledge (atheism) are mutually exclusive terms.
you can't reconcile the two. its like saying you're a little bit pregnant.
but at the end of the say all atheists and agnostics are liars suppressing the truth because they all know God is real, that they will be judged, and so they busy themselves in the meantime.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero well atheism ISN'T a knowledge claim.. It's a statement of belief which is not the same thing as absolute knowledge..
It's the difference between saying "I believe Australia exists" and "I know Australia exists"
and why would atheists deny God's existence if they knew He existed? Christianity doesn't require anything for acceptance into Heaven except acceptance of sins and Jesus' sacrifice, repentance, and belief. You really think they'd choose eternal Hell over Heaven? Get real!!!
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA here's what you're saying: an atheist believes what they believe NOT because of evidence but because they prefer it. that is the very definition of wishful thinking and while i agree with you, claiming that you believe something is either implying that something to be TRUE or that you're a fool for blindly believing it.
why deny God's existence?
that one's easy. they hate God and choose to try to ignore all of creation screaming out His Glory.
anonazero 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA christianity requires nothing. God requires payment for YOUR personal active and passive sin. someone has to pay. people that go to hell CHOOSE to go to hell. yes, they choose it.
people don't go to heaven because they simply made a choice to get out of one line and get into another. people go to heaven because of the blood bought redemption made possible by Jesus Christ CHOOSING to come and pay the debt of sinners. therefore, all who trust in Him will be saved. (Romans 3:25-26)
anonazero 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA people choose hell because they hate God and the more God shows Himself to those people the more they will hate Him. so the people in hell never repent, they just continue growing in hatred for Jesus.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero LOL that's awesome.
Why would God care if anyone hates Him? And if God loves everyone, why wouldn't He give the people who didn't want to be near Him somewhere nice to go instead of a lake of fire? That sounds like something an angry toddler would do.
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA first off, who says God loves everyone? psalm 5:5 says he hates all who do iniquity.
secondly, the reason hell exists is because God being perfectly just must, by virtue of who He is, punish sin. hell is just the wrath of God. you don't understand why you deserve hell because thats how evil you are and you don't know how evil you are because you don't know how perfectly righteous and good God is.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero How is it just to punish anyone infinitely?
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA the measure of the punishment should be directly relative to the measure of the offense, do you disagree with that?
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero Yes, I do. You have to take into account both the intent, the extent of the effect of the crime, and the offenders mental state, and try to get the punishment to equal that.
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA okay, so here's a hypothetical. a guy walks down the street and kicks a bum that is just being a bum because he just doesn't like the guy. whats going to happen to him? not much (if anything).
same guy, same street, and he kicks the president of the U S of A. what happens? he's at least going to prison if not the morgue. what changed?
the crime? nope, a guy kicked a guy for the same motive (intent).
the DEGREE of offense changed based on the stature of the person offended.
anonazero 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA if a homeless man is kicked nobody really cares. if you kick the president of the united states you'll be lucky to not die... but the president is just another man. another fallible, sinful, broken, corrupt man...
you haven't committed a crime against a bum... not even the president... you (like all men) are guilty of treason against an infinitely holy, righteous, perfect King. therefore, what you (and i) deserve is a punishment of infinite scope... thus... wrath forever. AKA hell
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero first off, you wouldn't be killed for kicking the president. You would probably get charged with assault and post bail.
Second, kicking the president is a big deal because hurting him hurts an ENTIRE COUNTRY.
Third, just because God is infinite INDIVIDUAL, that doesn't mean it would be just to punish someone infinitely for offending him. Justice is equal treatment between parties. There is no such thing as an infinite crime. So an infinite punishment is always unjustified.
eat it.
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA 1. its a FELONY at least and probably treason. try again.
2. it is a big deal but it doesn't hurt the country. most people here would laugh, nobody would care. the courts, however, would care. the LAW cares because the position of the presidency carries much weight.
3. you're just making one assertion after another throwing logic out the window.
you're too emotional. stop. breathe. think. post. that's the order.
anonazero 4 months ago
@anonazero 1. TREASON??? Haha, no, you try again. Find me one law source that says the kicking the president is considered treason. That's just a blind assertion, as far as I'm concern. What kind of kick are you talking about? I'm thinking like a casual kick of the shins. No way you'd get treason charges for THAT!
2. By, hurt the country, I mean that kicking the president reflects badly on the nation. It'd be kinda of a tacky thing to do.
3. No, I'm not. U are.
I did think. Ur retarded. f u.
SHIBBYiPANDA 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA i know i didn't answer your question, allow me to chase a rabbit for a moment.
anonazero 4 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA "Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you."
The Koran 10 : 108
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh So that means you only go aright for the good of you're own soul, that makes a good man following islam, good only in the persuit of a prize, that being heaven. That doesn't put too much weight to morals, or worship as it is for selfish gain.
misfitstattoo 2 months ago
@misfitstattoo By doing good to others (souls) and because God deserves to be thank weather paradise or Hell.
The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim ...when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns ...?
So permitting yourself to claim 'god did it' in the face of those unknowns is somehow better?
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "it would be a superstitious notion"
That's hysterical, coming from a guy demanding we accept his invisible friend. Irony defined.
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh And that offsets the demand that we accept your faith as true? At best you have an argument for agnosticism or apatheism, but a positive proof of god? I don't think so.
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I could accept your logic if not for the fact you've already established you have a pony in the race. As it is, it seems you are trying to reduce the scientific method to the same level of fiction as mythology. I'm not buying it.
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh You are confusing skepticism towards an unfounded, unprovable claim with outright rejection, and generalizing that extreme position with all who reject adherence to a faith's tenets.
Not entirely evenhanded on your part.
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Was all that pointless verbiage supposed to mean something? Redefining what the scientific method means is the most ridiculous and sorry attempt you've made yet. You still haven't explained how you get from that to 'god did it'.
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism When the experimental sciences demonstrate that the elements and natural facrtors cannot exert any independent influence and do not possess any creativity; when all of our experiences, our sensory feelings, and our rational deductions point to the conclusion that nothing occurs in nature without a reason and cause and that all phenomena are based on an established system and specific laws, when all of this is the case, it is surprising that some people turn their backs on
1tabligh 2 months ago
scientific principles, primary deductions and propositions based on reflection, and deny the existence of the Creator.
Now, too, in the age of science and technology, when man has found his way into space, a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system; they have come to believe in the existence of a creator, a source for all beings, not only by means of the heart and the conscience, but also through deduction and logic.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "a considerable number of scientists have a religious outlook as part of the intellectual system;"
Uhm, hate to rain on your parade sunshine, but if polls indicate that 90%+ of scientists are in fact atheists, then your 'considerable number' isn't very considerable. That's how math works.
You can grind your mental axe all you want, but in the end you're still a dullard for god.
moopism 2 months ago
@moopism Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Evolution is nowhere near a perfect process. In fact, perfection does not exist.
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen *Edit*
Perfection does not exist outside of mental ideals.
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Quite possibly.
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?
Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh They don't learn their functions. They perform functions by a completely blind process of chemical reactions. It's not always precise and neat, and is quite often wasteful and inaccurate (see autoimmune disease and allergies for an example), although I will give you, overall the living body (of any organism) is an amazing thing.
I do not agree that complexity necessitates a designer, no. And even if one concedes to this idea, what use is it? Can we make any scientific progess with it?
anglaismoyen 2 months ago 6
@anglaismoyen What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Um... a great many?
Something like 90% of scientists don't believe that nature has a guiding consciousness.
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Yes. It is a known fact that understanding of the universe is inversely correlated with a belief in a god. Look up "god of the gaps".
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh I never said it was a contradiction, but by the rules of Occam's razor, when unnecessary or unprovable hypotheses can be 'shaved' from a theory, it is usually the case that it is best to do so.
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Are you expecting me to say "yes" to one of your questions eventually?
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh That is your belief. I don't see us getting anywhere with this.
anglaismoyen 2 months ago
@anglaismoyen God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh "One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences"
And that's just as true concerning belief in unicorns, bigfoot, magic beans, ghosts, any and all god myths, and snake oil salesmen of every stripe.
If any real God(s) were found by a leap of faith, all faith would lead to the same God(s). They don't.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Have you ever ascended or visited this sky, which you behold with your eyes, or been in the depths of the earth?
Have you traversed the world, dived in every sea, and moved through the Universe?
To *presumptuously* deny the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator, you must have been to all these places.
Well, How can you say that He is not in those places where neither you *nor* your *senses* have ever been?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I've never seen my stomach digest a steak...does that mean I presumptuously deny the existence of little green men in my digestive system? Of course not.
Omniscience is contradictory to the fact we have free will. Omnipotence is contradictory to logical analysis : an omnipotent being cannot make a being more powerful than itself, ergo, omnipotence cannot exist.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage May be you have admitted the *probability* of a creator, you will, I hope, be convinced to admit the certainty. From *flat denial* you may have come to *doubt*, from that perhaps to *faith.*
Imagining is a sign of impotence when confronted with what you cannot be certain of.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh #1 nothing is certain, there's only degrees of probability. #2 I've never 'flatly denied' the existence of real God(s). #3 faith (without evidence) is just a socially acceptable word for self-delusion.
If you claim, with certainty, that what you take on faith is true, you are delusional.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Now tell me, have you ever been everywhere?
How strange it is that you have not been everywhere to know what lies everywhere, but nonetheless you deny what exists there. Would any wise man deny the reality of what he is ignorant of?
And you deny the existence of the Creator because you cannot see him with your eyes.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh According to your argument, since you haven't been everywhere, you are denying the reality of Santa Claus.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage So, in fact, you have doubts concerning the existence of God; you think He may exist and He may not exist?
So how do you know what is there?
Have you seen that the universe always existed and will always exist?
How come you have taken one side over the other. It is wiser for you to say 'I don't know,' and I will subject myself to further scrutiny, than to take a stand and say there's 'No God' because you have taken that stand and you have *no* evidence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh I have no doubt that Yahweh is as fake as Zeus, AmenRa, Ptah, Allah, Ganeshu, and all other godcult myths I've studied so far. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not real Creator(s) exist.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Is it not true that all the things we accept and believe to exist have an existence belonging to the same category as our own or as things that are visible to us?
Can we see or feel everything in this material world?
Is it only God we cannot see with our senses?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Your questions equally apply to Santa Claus.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Santa Claus
___
I did not claim the divinity of anyone besides God!
The one who claims of "Santa Claus" or anything is supposed to prove what he claims!
If you claim the divinity of anyone besides God, you need to prove your claim.
If someone claims that you are a Santa Claus, he has to prove it. I do not need to prove that you are a man because you appear as a man and have all the attributes of a man.
1tabligh 1 month ago
The one who claims that you are a Santa Claus is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact.
What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?
1tabligh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh "The one who claims that you are a Santa Claus is supposed to prove what he claims, because his claim is contrary to the common sense and to what appears as the actual fact."
I absolutely agree.
"What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?"
Where is there any valid evidence that our universe has anything supernatural about it?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage To specifically answer your question "What proof exists to substantiate the claim that being is equivalent to matter and that the whole world of being consists of material entities?" - that would be all valid, testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence to date.
So once again, what proof exists to substantiate your belief that anything supernatural exists?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@anglaismoyen No but we can't make any scientific process with Darwinism either.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 I'll bite.
Explain yourself.
anglaismoyen 1 month ago
@anglaismoyen Darwinism does not advance society. I know alot of people say well this Dna this or that cell that but that is biology not Darwinism. Darwinism itself is still an unproven theory and wouldn't exist without implied biology to back it up but you cannot say it is biology because biology is a science that can be repeatedly demonstrated using the scientific method.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 Darwinism or evolutionary theory is even accepted by the catholic church. Where do you come off denying a concept you dont understand? "Implied" biology...lets think about this. I had a science teacher once. His ring fingers were longer than those of the rest of his hands (true story). He had a son, who also carried this trait. If by some chance, in a world where we werent so advanced and tried to maintain human life, this helped them survive and reproduce, it would be common.
theknowbeing 1 month ago
@theknowbeing Its accepted by certain people within the Catholic Church, it is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as a whole and that is only because those ministers who say you can have it both ways are part of the corruption that has gone on in the Church. The Bible says that the Church at the endtimes would be lukewarm neither hot nor cold for Jesus.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 Really? How many times have all these xtian "mathematicians" said that the "end times" are here? The church was corrupted AT THE BEGINNING because its all a fraud and used to control people by fear. Why does god need money? "Pope John Paul II Embraces Evolution!" is a headline. Look it up. Evolution can be proven by the genome project, by the closeness of genetics of species, and they can trace them back to common ancestors. Your "god" fantasy is dead. Grow up.
theknowbeing 1 month ago
@theknowbeing The Church will always have corruption in it until our Lord returns and purges the whole damn thing. There were hundreds of thousands of people who were persecuted for not submitting to Church dogma back a few hundred years ago but not all Churchgoers are like that or evil its just the douchebags that run some of them. I just don't like how the media spins all the bad things about Roman Catholics and never any of the good things they've done like charity don'tyouagree
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 Atheists do charity work as well, and not because they believe some invisible man in the sky wants them to. Here's my question: with all the science that you use today, from medicine to computers, why deny it when it comes to disproving outdated superstitions? It obviously works, and praying doesnt. Statistically, its like flipping a coin. And if gods so "awesome," how come he gave us the appendix, which does nothing except make people sick occasionally?
theknowbeing 1 month ago
@theknowbeing The Appendix has a use. Type in "Over 160 Professors refuse to debate a Creationist."
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 Really? Look it up and tell me what it is then. Your just spouting bullshit because you know your religion is a fraud.
theknowbeing 1 month ago
@theknowbeing No. If you want to be a big boy then its time to put on your big boy pants and do some homework. I am not spoon feeding you.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
@JamesRideout123 In Luke 19:12,14,15,27 it says "And it came to pass that, when he was returned, having received the kingdom,... But those mine enemies,
who would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay them before me."
This is the person you worship?
lewisner 5 days ago
@JamesRideout123 "Darwinism does not advance society."
Next time you get an infection, don't take antibiotics. All modern antibiotics are developed through understanding evolution. Just pray to whatever God you're convinced exists, and you can die soon, convinced you'll meet them.
"you cannot say it is biology because biology is a science that can be repeatedly demonstrated using the scientific method." You have a very warped understanding of biology and evolution.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Biology is not Darwinism and advances in Biology do not mean advances in Darwinism. Darwinism is the idea that an animal can give birth to a different kind of animal which has nothing to do with real Science like Biology.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JamesRideout123 "Biology is not Darwinism" - Modern biology is founded in Darwinism, specifically the Theory of Evolution. It's the framework in which all biological life verifiably operates.
"Darwinism is the idea that an animal can give birth to a different kind of animal"
LOL.no it's not. You've never even read his book have you :/
Why do you criticize something you clearly don't understand? Is it because the guy you give money to on Sundays tells you non-sense like this?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@anglaismoyen *progress.
JamesRideout123 1 month ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 2 months ago
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh You haven't a leg to stand on, first of all you haven't rebuked my argument because you can't as it is solid logic. Secondly it is the religious like you that is delusional, us rational thinkers and science has proven the quran and the old and new testements to be false. We don't worship religion, to say so is stupid, it is you pathetic people who bow on a matt towards a big stone in the middle east, how stupid. M-theory suggests that there are 11 dimensions.
misfitstattoo 2 months ago
@1tabligh And when it is proven right it will make god pointless. Allah is not real, you are very stupid and delusional to believe so.
misfitstattoo 2 months ago
@misfitstattoo you are very stupid
___
Umm!
So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!
Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "you are very stupid "!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!
The argument of an IGNORANT!
Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!
1tabligh 2 months ago
@misfitstattoo The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@misfitstattoo Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@MultiGreenpen that's just a lie but i'm sure you believe it.
you accept things without proof all the time. i mean, unless you don't believe anything recorded in history at any time.
anonazero 6 months ago
@MultiGreenpen opinion - o·pin·ion –noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
do you realize that you're an agnostic, not an atheist, yet?
anonazero 6 months ago