I want to translate what this man talk about.He firstly said I dont know there is a god or not.I see most religious people suck in their life and my fellow atheist brothers and sisters are in better position so I see an open field to show people how religion sucks.I am not a believer any supreme being but I am enough idiot to take consider something just talks about God and God's rule.Why do these atheist and religious leaders feel responsible to show us the way we should walk on?
@Killer0fTheSun ummm, repeating my question does follow logically,
I was replying to this comment: "You('re) an atheist to every other god you dismiss on the same reason i dismiss yours" (the sentence doesn't make actual sense but what you're trying to say is easily understandable, oh and get your you're/your right)
so I asked "you dismiss other gods based on ignorance?"
hence I'm implying that the religious dismiss other gods based on ignorance
@Killer0fTheSun you apparently didn't understand my first comment, so I explained, there is no jam. I'm getting the feeling that english is far from being your first language.
yeah I already subscribed to your channel a couple of months ago
I also note you are a fan of Hitchens.....please feel free to view the largest assemble of Hitchens videos anywhere on the web on my page...I wish you good health and cheer.
@Killer0fTheSun I believe in God because of the evidence. For me not to believe would be unreasonable and illogical. I do not believe in "every other god" because there is no evidence to cause such a belief.
@drew24p In other words, you have nothing that you can show physically or objectively. People can believe in whatever arguments they would like, but that is not evidence that something is true. Those arguments can be made of ANY monotheistic god, or really any god.
Just because I accept the logic of evolution, doesn't make it true. What makes it true is DNA, genetics, fossils, taxonomy, neurology, biology, cell theory, etc, etc.
@EpicPhalosophy Do you disagree with the cosmological and teleological argument? Fossils, DNA, genetics, biology, ect., provide additional evidence that there is a God and the Bible is reliable.
@drew24p Sorry to inform you, the Bible has nothing to do with any branch of science. Except a few instances in which it is completely wrong. Let's take biology.
Leviticus 11:20-23, for instance, claims that insects have four legs. Before the fall of man, there was no death; so tapeworms, barracudas, T-rexes, lions, etc all had to eat fruit- all of these species would die. God condemned snakes to "eat dust." They don't.
I could go on. And yes, those arguments are not irrefutable.
@EpicPhalosophy Unless science is fiction, the big bang theory and macro evolution have nothing to do with science. Let's take for instance that no common ancestor has been found and that "scientists" have produced many so called common ancestors that are later identified as false. Usually the announcements are far louder than the retractions. I do believe we have a common ancestor and his name is Noah and her name is Eve :-)
@drew24p That is simply not true. All it takes is a 2 minute Google search. If you believe the flood story literally, it's interesting that we have artifacts of Chinese culture from 10,000 BC when the flood supposedly occurred 2000 BC.
This wasn't even what my last post was about. You said nothing to refute what I said about the Bible. Science doesn't need to disprove the Bible. The Bible does a good enough job disproving itself.
@EpicPhalosophy For the thousands of so-called biblical errors that skeptics have found there has been an equal amount of rebuttals. You can do a quick Google search of an "errors" rebuttal (including the one above). It is up to the person to decide if the explanations are sufficient. But what I have found is that many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth.
@drew24p Except that as a christian, you are morally responsible for being able to answer these. 1 Peter 3:15. So really I would be doing you a favor by getting you to be able to answer these. I do this so people actually start critically analyzing the Bible instead of just accepting everything they're spoon-fed. And eventually they might see why it's just ridiculous.
@EpicPhalosophy I appreciate your honesty. You show “errors” in the Bible with the intent of showing others how ridiculous the Bible is. Like I said earlier, many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth. Christians do have a responsibility to search for truth, know it, proclaim it, and defend it (1Peter 3:15; Proverbs 26:4; Matthew 7:6). Thank you for the reminder and please take some time to listen (Matthew 13:15).
@drew24p No, you misunderstand. What's ridiculous is what you have to rationalize by believing the Bible. You have to rationalize the Bible saying insects have four legs. You have to rationalize Yahweh sending two bears to maul 42 young boys to death for making fun of a bald man. I was a christian for 18 years and I've compiled a 37 page Word document of everything (I've found) that you have to rationalize in order to believe any of the Bible literally.
@EpicPhalosophy As I said earlier, there are thousands of so-called biblical errors that skeptics have found that have caused many to view the Bible as ridiculous. Some, like you, have put them into lists. What you believe to be rationalizing I believe to be understanding. Often times when truth rears its ugly head the skeptic moves on to the next "error" on his list. Many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth.
@drew24p That's what a rational person does if something is supposed to be perfect- check for imperfections. If the Bible is perfectly, objectively moral and the actions of Yahweh are morally perfect in every single verse of the Bible, then Christians must defend the genocides Yahweh committed, burning profane daughters to death, Yahweh threatening mothers that they will have to eat their own children, etc
If you "understand" these and not just rationalize them, then.. wow. Just, wow.
@Killer0fTheSunI also dismiss your “creator” on the same premise that you dismiss mine - lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary. I choose to believe that there is a God based on evidence, reason, and logic. You choose to believe that there is not a God based on evidence, reason, and logic. One of us is wrong. Consequences for being wrong? Me, nothing... you, eternal torment.
Consequences? I laugh at such a stupid response. Your so entirely insecure that you need the threats of hell to try and "scare" the non-believer.Im not scared,,,,and fuck you and your cult.
@Killer0fTheSun Yes, consequences. There are consequences and/or effect of what a person believes. Hell is what you, I, and every other person in this world deserves for continually breaking God's laws. It isn't a scare tactic but rather a reasonable and logical consequence. Can you imagine a murderer echoing your thoughts after you inform him of our justice system and the consequences for his actions?
Hell is deserved to everyone? Welll you sir lack a conscience then. But i expect this from the monotheistic believer. When one has to believe or wants to believe that a being creates or allows such a place that person is lacking empathy. Scare tactic? Yes it is...it doesnt work any longer. And it wont anymore.
@drew24p "It isn't a scare tactic but rather a reasonable and logical consequence"
I don't know if you're a parent, but I'm sure you can sympathize with this analogy anyway.
If your child goes against your wishes by sneaking a cookie from the kitchen cabinet - despite knowing full-well that it's wrong - would you consider it "reasonable" or "logical" to douse them in gasoline and set them on fire? Even if only for a few seconds or minutes?
@SeedsOfHatred No, I don't believe the crime in that situation fits the punishment. As a parent with two children I would put them in time out and speak to them about what they did wrong. I don't believe your illustration is a good representation of the consequences for sinning.
@drew24p Oh it's a very good representation. Because many "sins" that will send people to Hell are no more malicious than sneaking a cookie from the cookie jar. And even the more extreme "sins" such as murder should be punished with equality - a loss of the sinner's life. That is perfectly fair.
And yet, your God wishes to not only allow the sinner to lose his life, but also burn in horrific agony for an eternity.
@SeedsOfHatred If a grown man stole something and you sent your son in his place to reap the legal consequences. You sent your son to receive the punishment that he deserved. But instead of repenting of his actions, accepting your gift, and being thankful he continued to steal. Not only did he continue to steal but mocked/laughed/ridiculed you and the son that went to jail on his behalf. Would you welcome such a man in your home forever or would you leave him outside (Matthew 22)?
@drew24p I would obviously leave him outside. However, I would not force him to sit outside burning alive.
But the problem with the Christian mind is that burning alive is the only other alternative. Not only that, but they feel it is a just and fair alternative.
That is not morality. That is a morality corrupted. And they project this bloodlust onto their God; whom they claim is both "loving" and "just".
@SeedsOfHatred I think you might have a distorted view of the Christian God. I believe the scriptures plainly speak about the degrees of punishment a person will receive in hell. Yes, those who do not obey God and receive his mercy/grace will be separated from Him for eternity (because of their actions) but the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the sins committed (Luke 12:42-48). If you would like more info on this please let me know.
@drew24p You see, ultimately, this is the difference between me and your God: I have a balanced idea of what is truly "fair". He does not. He allows a sinner to die for his sins (Romans 6:23), but then he takes things an unecessary step further by forcing that sinner to suffer in unimaginable agony and torment. THis would be unjust if it was allowed to occur for even just a day, but he allows it to uccor for years and decades and millinia and aeons.
@SeedsOfHatred Without God there is no such thing as "truly fair." There is only subjective opinions of what each person believes to be fair. I don't think I have to spell out the horrific consequences of a godless society. Many today are educated in and have accepted the philosophical movement of postmodernism.
@drew24p "I don't think I have to spell out the horrific consequences of a Godless society"
If you did, you'd be describing Sweden, in which religious persons are a minority. Oddly enough, they also have the lowest crime rate.
However, this is far from the topic at hand. You're blatantly ignoring God's extreme overkill when it comes to punishment. Regardless of the severity of their punishment, your God forces them to endure it for millenia. That is simply wrong. If your God can't see that
@drew24p (Part 2) then he is not worthy of being called a "just and loving God", because he clearly reasons as a bloodthirsty and psychopathic adolescent. In which case, I don't know why anyone with any dignity would want to worship the bastard in the first place.
@SeedsOfHatred God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. God doesn't want anyone to spend eternity away from Him (2Peter 3:9). God, being completely good, holy, and perfect can not (yes, there are things God can not do) be in fellowship with or accept those who are ungodly, imperfect, and unholy. It is not God that chooses for us to spend eternity in hell it is our actions that dictate that. We choose to do what is wrong and therefor we choose separation from God and hell.
@SeedsOfHatred I can sympathize with your anger towards what you believe to be god but I really think you have a misunderstanding of the Christian God. From my perspective, you are calling the judge a bastard for throwing someone in jail for committing a crime. For receiving the punishment for the crime they committed. Not only that, but you are calling him a bastard while he is offering you a way to stay out of jail -turn from your evil ways, accept my mercy, and do what is good.
@drew24p I'm calling him a bastard because he's not simply "throwing someone in jail"; he's throwing them in jail AND lighting them on fire. By your logic, the mistreatment, rape, assault, and any other number of additional horrors men suffer after having had their freedom taken away is an excusable part of their prison sentence.
Are you really this dense, or are you brainwashed like the rest of them? You're completely ignoring the overkill in your God's punishments and instead, are trying
@drew24p (Part 2) to justify why there needs to be a punishment. Punishment is fine. But that punishment needs to be fair, and your God has not a fucking clue what "fair" is. As I said, he's a psychopath. He lets people die for their sins (refer to the scripture I noted earlier) because "the wages sin pays is death", but then he takes it a whole sadistic step further by torturing them.
And not only that, but he allows them to be tortured FOREVER. Did it not ever occur to you that maybe after
@drew24p (Part 3) a little while, they might have suffered enough? That they would have suffered fairly according to whatever pety crime your God had convicted them of?
Let's put this into an illustration again. You seem to think it's ok to set your child on fire for sneaking a cookie from the jar. Ok. A bit twisted, but ok. They're your kids. But let's put this in more relatable terms:
You simply ground your child for sneaking that cookie. You told them not to, they did it anyway, it seems
@SeedsOfHatred Would a person guilty of sin be in a better position to determine how long sin should be punished than a sinless, perfect God (1 John 1:5)? Maybe we should start asking murderers how long they believe their sentence should be and/or what their punishment should be. Seeds, do you think it would be just for God to send some people to hell for a minute for their actions? 10 min? an hour? a year? a decade? a life?
@drew24p (Part 4) fair to send them to their room for a while. That is a just punishment.
What you're suggesting, though, is that they should not only be sent to their room for an hour or two. No, they're to be sent to their room indefinitely. For the rest of their days; never to leave.
Surely you can see how that is complete overkill. Having said that, it amazes me how you are so blind that you CAN'T see how Hellfire - something so much worse than being sent to your room - is more overkill
@SeedsOfHatred "Fair" is subjective unless there is an absolute objective moral authority that determines what "fair" is. I am sure there are people that believe it is "fair" to kill you because of your ethnicity, "fair" to kill the unborn, "fair" to molest children, and the list goes on to every imaginable evil. My point is, who are you to say what is fair? It is merely your opinion. You say God isn't fair but purely on the basis of emotions and subjective thought. Cont.
@SeedsOfHatred Thomas Jefferson put forward a law to castrate those who participated in homosexuality. He put this law forward in an effort to be more "fair" and merciful to homosexuals. The punishment in that day for homosexuality was death. Was every state in the union fair to make homosexuality a felony? Was Thomas Jefferson fair? Or are we fair today? cont.
@SeedsOfHatred My point is that you can cry out "that isn't fair" all day but unless you have an absolute objective authority to back up your moral claims they have as much weight as those who have deemed psychopathic. I can't argue with subjectivity and opinions. Yes seeds of hatred, you feel that God is unfair and psychopathic.
@drew24p I don't need an objective authority to see that burning alive for all eternity is unfair and unjust. That's what makes me better than your God. Even I, a simple human being, can see how sadistic he is. You would see it too were you not as brainwashed as you are.
Also, my name is in reference to pies. I hate cherry pie.
See how trivial and irrelevant that is to my argument? It's bullshit, of course, but my name's meaning is as irrelevant as irrelevant can be. Don't be a moron.
@SeedsOfHatred You are right, you don't need an objective authority to feel that burning alive for all eternity is unfair and unjust, to feel I am brainwashed, to feel like you are better than the God of the Bible, to feel that God is sadistic. I understand your feelings seeds of hatred and I appreciate you taking some time to express them to me.
@Imperativism God created the Hell. God promised the outcome of those who disobey him. God allows Hell to exist. God sees it as a fit punishment for a lifetime of pety crimes.
Your God sends people to Hell; regardless of how much you want to twist the words around to make him look innocent.
@SeedsOfHatred Quantum physics proves conclusively that the universe is not deterministic but statistical with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Chaos theory proves that initial conditions of Einstienian systems are sensitive to random flucations in the quantum vacuum so that 100% perfect prediction is impossible. Most importantly, psychophysics now conclusively demonstrates that free will not only exists, but in fact relies on quantum gravity in its processes through Orch-OR.
@Imperativism "Wuantum Physics" - or what most of us like to call "What-If"-Science.
In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with your God sending people to Hell. I spoke about Him sending people. Not the choices that they made that got them the one-way ticket.
I do not lose, because you did not argue my point. You tip-toed around it.
@SeedsOfHatred There's a difference between rhetoric and logic; rhetoric is emotionally persuasive speech. Logic is the discipline of proper reasoning through language. You can have elegantly fluent rhetorical arguments that strike an emotional chord, like Harris' did in his debate against William Lane Craig, but lose the argument because they fail to address the facts, like Harris lost against Craig. Likewise, so is the case here: your point substitutes logic with the rhetorical.
As I stated, your God allows Hell to exist. He allows people to go there as a - in his twisted view of morality - "just punishment" for sin. They can choose to be sent to Hell all they want, but your God is ultimately the one who governs all things, correct? If that is the case, then he sends people to Hell. Unless you are suggesting that he governs all things, except where one goes when they die.
@SeedsOfHatred There's a contradiction in your question. If human beings have free will, as is implied by mankind's capacity to choose their spiritual destiny: Heaven or Hell, then you cannot seriously claim that God governs mankind without contradicting yourself and negating the validity of the question. We either have free-will and thus are not governed by God, or are governed by God and lack free-will. So no, your logic isn't plain and simple. It's self-contradictory
SeedsOfHatred...Human beings do not have free will. Free will is not even possible. We learn everything we know. Everything has causality. Even our personalities are completely contingent on our environment and our biology (particularly during the cognitive development periods of our life). You don't choose to be alive, you don't choose your biology, and you don't choose your environment. There is no free will.
@drew24p your god doesn't give you absolute objective morality. Even if he/she existed, they have absolutely failed to communicate their "absolute objective morality" to us mere humans in a way that isn't completely opaque and open to interpretation.
@Dawkins007 The problem isn't with the writer of the laws or the laws themselves. The problem is with our ignorance, unwillingness, and/or our proclivity to disobey them. Its obeying the law that is the problem, not the law itself.
@Dawkins007 Objectively, I wouldn't see it as morally unjust for a homosexual to be put to death for his actions. But I also don't see it (objectively) as morally unjust for a homosexual not to be put to death for his actions. Subjectively, I would not support (would vote against) a law that put homosexuals to death.
@Dawkins007 I would honestly just give it up with this one. He's beyond reason. It's a shitty prospect, but sometimes we just have to let these creatures exist. Even if it infuriates us to do so.
@SeedsOfHatred Yep you're probably right. But it may be that some fair minded wavering believer reads the comment and it helps convince them to abandon their attachment to bronze age superstitions!
@Dawkins007 This is true. In fact, that's often the only thing that keeps me debating with certain people - even after I know that there is no chance in hell that they'll be swayed.
@SeedsOfHatred In your subjective moral world, you believe it would be moral and just to kill me and those who think like me. You wrote... "people such as yourself deserve death. Not as a punishment for your twisted and f****d-up ideas of morality, but as a simple precaution. As a cultural cleansing." I am labeled as unreasonable for turning the other cheek while you are the reasonable one by suggesting I should be killed. When subjective morals become the absolute - scary.
@Dawkins007 I believe you might have a misunderstanding of the Bible. The Law of Moses that was given to Israel is different than the Law of Liberty that was given to the world (Jews & Gentiles). The law of Moses was more of a theocracy while the Law of Liberty (New Covenant) is not. One established the governing authorities (Law of Moses) while the other has us subject ourselves to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7).
@drew24p AND he commits these horrific injustices while claiming to be loving and just. Does he think we're stupid and can't see his glaring psychopathy, or does he simply not care?
I'm sorry for the multiple responses, by the way. These things just continue to come to me and I feel they need to be said.
@Killer0fTheSun Also, I am will to accept the consequences and/or effect if I am wrong. I would be abstaining from the pleasure of sin for nothing, my preaching would be in vain, the hope I have for those that have perished in Christ is lost, my faith is worthless, I am still in my sins, and Christians out of all mankind should be the most pitied (1Corinthians 15: 13-19).
What on earth are u talking about ? science is just explanation how body works or how the universe works ! but by knowing how body works does that mean you know that nobody created that body to work that way ? You are missing very crucial point ! how on earth by knowing the function of the car you can say there is no one who made that car to work that way ! WE KNOW HOW A CAR WORKS THEREFORE NOBODY MADE IT TO WORK THAT WAY , IT JUST CAME BY ACCIDENT ! AND THAT IS LOGICAL WEEEEHHHHHHHHH
@peeps1ism You are correct. And you missed the point. Religion was mankind's first attempt at science, morality, politics, etc. However, because it was our first,it was our worst. We now have better knowledge and institutions. Religion is a natural phenomenon, but like the dinosaurs, its time has come.
What evidence do you have for the existence/nature of this "first being" other than your own imagination (or the collective imagination of the society that raised you to believe in this being)?
On a more philosophical note, what constitutes a "being"? Is it necessarily sentient? Is it the first instance of "life"? In the case of the latter, you maaaaay be paying homage or reverence to a single-cells bacteria-like organism. Lame?
caused (when authentic) by the First Cause; not only does it makes sense from the unmoved mover proof (which shows that the first Being is not in motion, and therfore not material/energy), but this spiritual stuff points to a spiritual source -- the same first Being, which is the source of all Reality, including intelligence. So the First Being is intelligent, powerful, has personhood, etc. .. since all that stuff is found in the fabrice of reality. Your thoughts?
Ok .. here is my take at this point in time ... when I say god, I don't mean the god of any particular religion, but rather the God of all religions. I don't think all religions have the same degree of truth ... I think we've witnessed serious privations of truth in some religions in recent times. It can't be true for example that flying planes into buildings filled with innocent people is morally good, and so Islamic fundamentism has radical flaws in its truth claims .. next post ...
patientthomist: You must be kidding. In the OT God orders killing and more killing and if that is not tyrannical I don't know what is. He wants people to make sacrifices in his name, give their daughters up for rape, murder homosexuals and little children. Deuteronomy, Leviticus to name but two books; the list is endless:Read the Bible - loathsome book that it is.Even the ten commandments where it says "Thou shalt not kill" - Jews only, you can kill Medianites, Hittites and anyone else.
Who cares about God? Get on with your life. Morality does not need a deity. I am so bored of this argument about whether he exists or not. Good old Sam Harris, excellent example regarding devils and epilepsy. As we move on, religion will become redundant and all the lies, falsehoods and inaccuracies will be gone forever and all but the few will be free. Anyway, the Old Testament god is a tyrant,a misogynist, a racist and a bully full of wrath. What sensible person wants to worship that?
If there is no God, then Sam Harris can abuse you and your family, and there technically is nothing "wrong" with that. The Old Testament God is not a tyrant, but the stubborn people he was trying to lead to himself would not open their hearts to the love that is His nature. Every OT example points to that reality.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
If Sam Harris was really religious and in tune with God wavelength, he would have recognize that religion is just a tool to reach God and not a way to try understand reality as he portraits it. He was either a poser or he is now willingly a deceiver.
Either way, he just blew out his credibility. He got nothing to offer. He is another sad deluded and lost atheist that hasn't known God and never will if he doesn't open his heart truly and honestly.
If human free-will and self-awareness as an individual is mere illusion leaving leading to biochemical determinism and thus no individual culpability in choice of actions how is anything evil or wrong?
If there's no such thing as objective morality, just human preference to well being but a child molester has differing ideas about well being than his victims, how is that a "moral landscape" and not just a mere "preference landscape"? Harris has very low philosophical understandings.
Actually, religion is the virtue by which we give God what God is owed. God's existence is not a matter of faith ... it's a matter of reasoning from an empirically verifiable experience -- just like what is done in science. To not know that is to be dull of mind. If you want to learn how to prove God's existence by reason, let me know :)
We used religions for our Politics, Jesus Christ was punished cz he was a threat for Roman Empire because he believe in helping poor, Muhammad was punished because he became great danger for the wealth and power of Arabs. Muhammad talk about rights of poor, orphans, women, children and even animals. Religions came for Men but how can politicians want the rights of poor?
Sam Harris is one of the biggest hypocrites around.
According to him, terrorism is bad (but if Zionist Jews do it it's OK).
This guy is not an atheist in the true sense of the word at all. His allegiance is clearly with Zion.
Notice how he is happy to criticize Islam and Christianity endlessly, but not the slightest peep about Judaism (whose teachings are arguably even more depraved)...?
Sam Harris is one our greatest thinkers! Religion will un-make our world if we don't keep the nuts in their cage. See "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel for clarity.
@Sweence have you seen Harris ("world's greatest thinker") get owned by William Lane Craig in a debate on his book moral landscape? --It's on Youtube.
Craig's critiques were so devastating Harris couldn't respond to them. Instead he kept changing the subject to "hell" or other random topics that didn't fit the debate's topic of "Morality: Better With God or without God"
@mkwheeland87 You must be the only one who thinks that Craig won that debate. Myself and many others certainly didnt think so. Craig is pretty bad, but Lennox is aweful. "god did it" is the only evidence they present, and this is really terrible evidence. Craig is a religious zealot pretending to be a philosopher. There is no rational intelligibility of the universe, despite the crazy ramblings of Lennox. Lennox is ostracized from Catholicism because he's too crazy.
I'm definitely not the only person who thinks he won the debate. Read the comments below it on Youtube for others who agree. lol.
That was one of the most silly youtube comments I've ever heard about two men who between them have FIVE Ph.D.'s . . . must be pretty smart for "Crazy zealots" .. . gee, who would ever give them such degrees . . Oxford? my o my.... what were they thinking?
"god did it".... did you listen to the cosmo, teleological, and moral arguments given by craig??
@mkwheeland87 Anyone can get a phD. Ray Comfort claims to have one as well. Lennox's doctorate is in mathematics if im not mistaken. Believing in fairy tales does not disqualify you from a mathematics doctorate. Craig is not a real philosopher because he has only studied christianity and been educated in christianity. He also has a degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity College, doesnt that sound like an objective institution. For his doctorate he studied the bible.
This is plainly false. Craig has TWO Ph'D.s . . His MA was in philosophy (not bible) from Trinity. His Ph'D's are in Philosophy and a second in Systematic Theology.
Lennox has THREE Ph'Ds: in Science and Mathematics and i believe the third is Systematic Theology.. He still lectures at Oxford.. if he's so crazy, such a prestigious school would fire him.
"anyone can get a doctorate" . . do you have a doctorate? mr smarty pants. :)
@mkwheeland87 He got his doctorate studying the bible and the resurrection. What is his science doctorate in? Ive never heard of a general doctorate in science. John Lennox teaches mathematics at Oxford, not religion or philosophy. No I do not have a doctorate, I have a B.A. History and a M.A. in Epistemology. Though none of this qualifies me as anything more than a novice I admit. If I could afford to go back and get my doctorate I would.
@MrKGatl You are wrong. His PhD are in Systematic Theology and Philosophy (Univ of Birmingham). He received two MA's from TRinity (philosophy of religion). I don't know where you are getting your info. Gosh, even wikipedia gets it right, but you can't? I've heard him on his podcasts talk about his degrees and books (podcast: Reasonable Faith on iTunes).
Lennox lectures on philosophy of science and mathematics at Oxford. He also lectures on religion and ethics.
@mkwheeland87 For his doctorate he got at the University of Munich he studied the resurrection. John Lennox is part of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. Otherwise he is just an Oxford Mathematics professor. You shouldn't get all of your information from wikipedia.
@mkwheeland87 You're kidding right? Harris demolished Craig with logic, evidence and common sense. He provided conclusively that a person can have a moral foundation without an imaginary god. Craig bases his thesis on an imaginary god and an old iron-age book. This is problematic. He doesn't provide one convincing argument. He did speak louder though. You're just drinking the christian kool-aid.
@Sweence no. i am not kidding. belief in God is no joke, neither is the human state of sinfulness that he will judge us all for.
Harris appealed to emotions and irrelevant topics the entire night. and did not address craig's arguments (which craig made known . .example: "is" and "ought" distinction) . .
Can't i just claim that you are drinking the atheist kool-aid? (at least my "kool aid" doesn't lead me to hell. sorry. this stuff ain't a joke. eternity is stake sweence. please reconsider.)
@mkwheeland87 You are just another sick, deluded christian who's world-view comes from a magic book with talking animals. Religion poisons everything. Religion stifles intellectual thinking. Atheists are the most philanthropic, moral people on Earth. The prisons are filled with Christians. Please stop with your make-believe horse-shit.
@mkwheeland87 Being sick and deluded are not necessarily insults. If you believe in the stories from the bible as in talking snakes, virgin births, flat earth and a geocentric universe, then you are indeed sick and deluded. Period. These are cerebral conditions that can be cured.
He can only represent the moral prowess of himself. What makes you think he could represent the moral prowess of other people? A bit of a desperate swipe at atheists there over one silly comment on youTube.
I am not referring to Sam Harris. I was referring to @Sweence who cussed me out on here and then went on to tell me how morally superior atheists were. I was merely pointing out his double-mindedness. :)
I was not trying to take a "desperate swipe" at atheists. In fact, I believe the whole conversation of "who lives morally superior lives: atheists or theists" is a moot point.
@SudanCarib ignoring for the moment the validity of that statement, which I find to be bunk, Harris' point is exactly that religion was the first attempt at science... a failed one. to say science would not have come about without the mythology and magical thinking that science was developed to eliminate from honest inquiry is manifestly false and foolish. Such magical thinking is not unique to our species either, if you don't believe me look up skinners superstitious pidgen.
John Lennox says it best "science is cutting off the branch on which it sits by denying God and the rational intelligibility of the universe" (in his debate with Richard Dawkins).
@SudanCarib Science has grown despite religion. There would certainly be science without religion. Its like you're saying that people wouldnt wonder how things work without religion. Nothing has held science back more than religion. Science was around before religion and will be around after religion. Some people just prefer fairy tales to the truth and science.
@MrKGatl Religion was around during the neolithic and prehistoric times like animal worship and i think science didn't come until the ancient greek times. If science was around before religion then why don't we have our star wars galactic civilization by now? Religion will be here no matter what. People need to have some sort of specialty and divinity in their lives. Study the philosophy of religion
FYI it's not a fairy tale, We have alot of historical evidence for christianity anyway. : )
@SudanCarib Our species is still very young, and nothing has held science and intellectual advancement back more than religion. Not that we would have anything like a star wars civilization by now. As people have gotten smarter over time, the amount of gods most people believe in is shrinking. Now most people only believe in one god, so that is only one more god than an atheist. Do people need divinity even if its fake? Please give me some historical evidence for christianity's truth
@MrKGatl It's not fake. Religion is about exploring something greater than ourselves, not just comfort. Man is spiritual by nature universally. We are not aliens like we're some random intelligent lifeforms who just rose out of bacteria. We need sense of self. Did religion held Galileo, Issac newton, Copernicus Descartes and all the great religious scientist back? I don't think so. Because of the age of reason people started believing rationally and logically in one god (deism).
@SudanCarib If its not fake then you must have some kind of evidence right? Religion is just contemporary mythology. Those men were not religious scientists, they were simply scientists. And look how Galileo was treated by the church, as a heretic. Yes many scientists have been held back by religion. Religion is holding us back right now, especially in stem cell reseach, because religious groups think a petri dish with a few cells has a soul. Still no evidence?
@MrKGatl Galileo was agreed upon by scholar church men and he supported evidence to them that was not a threat to Christianity. The reason he was tried because the pope says don't teach about heliocentric ism as a fact because there is no scientific evidence for it. What did he do? he did it anyway and boom he was tried. But they never tortured him.
Throughout my research, These scientist talked about God a lot in their work. Kepler's "mysterium cosmographum". etc
@SudanCarib Galileo was considered a heretic and tried by a christian inquision. What the fuck does the pope know about science. A thousand years ago, Islam was leading the way in mathematics, but do you think that this validates Islam? Also, many scientists pretended to be christians in order to get research grants, since the church had all the money. You still havent offered any historical evidence for christianitys validity.
@MrKGatl what does the pope know about science? Just because he is religious doesn't mean he is dumb. I don't think Galileo or newton pretended. They were very devout Christians. Newton also practiced alchemy. They weren't closet atheist. I have read their works in the library.
Google this: Historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Jesus, Samuel's tomb, Pontius pilate.
@SudanCarib Research the some history on the popes, they werent all good men. I never said the pope was dumb either. Newton was a christian, but had to hide some of his beliefs from the church in fear of punishment. None of this validate or gives any proof to christianity. As for what you asked me to google, I believe that Jesus was a real person, but I do not believe he was in any way divine, just a regular guy. There is no such thing as dead people coming back to life or virgin births
@MrKGatl Well we could come into agreement that he was just a normal philosopher who taught nice things. His biological father's name was saint Joseph and his mother was Mary. I believe he had a wife too. Her name was Mary Magdalene.
People always say "well it's just about having faith" faith is useless, it's what is true that matters. Believing something with no evidence is not a good thing, it's just being gullible.
Faith must be reasonable. Faith is an intellectual act assenting to truth under the command of the will by God's grace. God's existence is not a matter of faith. I can prove God exists by reason.
OK ... not much room here to write, but let me summarize. Tthere cannot be an infinite regression of causes or motions; otherwise you can't exist or move. There must be a spiritual first cause/unmoved mover, because all material and energy is in motion. This BEING must also be omniscient and omnipotent since all forms of intelligence and being proceed from the first BEING -- which are the qualities of GOD. How would you refute this argument?
@patientthomist how do you not see the problem with that argument? you've assumed that because we don't know something then it MUST have a "spiritual first cause" this is a typical argument from ignorance (or god of the gaps fallacy) and it also begs the question because if you've explained hat everything started with god then you are now stuck with the question "where did god come from" which is an infinite regression in itself because you will always end up with that same question.
I like your reply, but it reveals two typical erroneous objections. The first cause must be spiritual (immaterial and non-energy) because it is unmoved. Think of it carefully -- what matter or energy is not in motion?
The set of words "what caused God?" is an invalid set of terms. It's like asking "Can God create a rock so big that he can't move it?". The point of infinite regress is that we can't pass through an unlimited chain of causes to reach YOUR existence.
@patientthomist no the first cause doesn't have to be spiritual, you've just assumed that it must be spiritual which is an argument from ignorance because we don't know what the first cause is.
and "what caused god" is a perfectly valid question. you are essentially saying everything needs a beginning and that beginning is god, but god doesn't need a beginning which is a special pleading fallacy. the point of the rock question points out that an omnipotent god is impossible.
You think that reasoning that an unmoved mover is immaterial because it's not in motion is an argument from ignorance? Not true. Look up argument from ignorance, dude, or take a logic class. You think that I'm saying "everything needs a beginning". I am not saying that, but most atheists think that's the argument. I'm saying that there cannot be an infinite regress -- much different. Your errors on these two points are keeping you in the dark.
@patientthomist you have asserted there must be a 'mover' and that mover is unmoved, and therefore must be spiritual, none of which have any evidence for.you're saying there can't be an infinite regress therefore god did it, i get it, i've heard the arguments plenty of times and it's the exact same as saying "everything can't come from nothing therefore god did it" or "we don't know where rain comes from so it must be god"
if it's not a typical argument from ignorance then explain how
No evidence? There is evidence -- all the items that surround you, and your own body. There is nothing material or nothing energy which is "still" or motionless -- go check with your physics professor. An unmoved being is still, and therefore is not material. Motion comes from a Motionless being -- deductive logic demands that reality from a sense experience of our own existence. You could only say that deductive logic does not produce truth, but then use it to say that.
@patientthomist so everything around me is evidence of a spiritual mover? I can just say that everything around you is evidence for a flying unicorn, that's how weak that statement is. "motion comes from a motionless being" that's a nice claim but you will have to prove it, just saying it doesn't make it true. That's not deductive logic, that's a textbook definition of a god of the gaps argument.
It is true. Everything around you is evidence of a spiritual mover. God teaches through nature. It can't be a flying unicorn since that would be in MOTION. You're not "getting" the motion argument. You are currently in motion; your motion was set in motion by a previous mover (parents, Darwinian evolution, Big Bang, etc.). That chain can't be infinite ... if it was, we would never reach your current motion. Therefore there is a first mover -- not moved by another.
@patientthomist "everything around you is evidence of a magic unicorn. the magic unicorn teaches through nature" because there is nothing to support these claims they can be used as evidence for literally anything and do not point to your god at all. I get the motion argument, and as far as we know all that "motion" was set in motion by the big bang, and before that we do not know, and to pretend that you actually do know, and that it was not just A god but YOUR god is laughable.
Belief in god in just wishful thinking and is detrimental to the progress of humanity!
jjoneil73 2 months ago
Se ele não é o diabo tentando o homem a cometer algum delito, eu me retiro do youtube...
gbtricolor1 2 months ago
Evidence of the existence of true God
watch?v=Vl12NtmqMYQ
watch?v=0xXgsndwxD4&feature=channel_video_title
watch?v=4wV0vV5Hrp0&feature=related
watch?v=BXiNXDDdaK8&feature=related
watch?v=azAOtB65Td0&feature=related
watch?v=RjKGlNVmnqc&feature=related
ThePero20111 2 months ago
religion = failed science ?
failed in explaining anything -> yes
but being science -> no
for something to be science it needs to employ the scientific method
science is self-correcting, religions most certainly are not.
religion is more like an ancestor of science because it also tried to explain reality.
unamaxify 3 months ago
@unamaxify "but being science -> no" That means religion is a failed science.
cruz1ale 2 months ago
I want to translate what this man talk about.He firstly said I dont know there is a god or not.I see most religious people suck in their life and my fellow atheist brothers and sisters are in better position so I see an open field to show people how religion sucks.I am not a believer any supreme being but I am enough idiot to take consider something just talks about God and God's rule.Why do these atheist and religious leaders feel responsible to show us the way we should walk on?
yigitinebolulu 3 months ago
I do not believe in Atheism, I believe there is a God
drew24p 3 months ago
@drew24p
Your an atheist to every other god you dismiss on the same reason i dismiss yours
Killer0fTheSun 3 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun you dismiss other gods based on ignorance?
flyingturtle22 3 months ago
@flyingturtle22
So you dismiss other gods based on ignorance?
Killer0fTheSun 3 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun ummm, repeating my question does follow logically,
I was replying to this comment: "You('re) an atheist to every other god you dismiss on the same reason i dismiss yours" (the sentence doesn't make actual sense but what you're trying to say is easily understandable, oh and get your you're/your right)
so I asked "you dismiss other gods based on ignorance?"
hence I'm implying that the religious dismiss other gods based on ignorance
flyingturtle22 3 months ago
@flyingturtle22
Is this your way of getting out of a jam?
Killer0fTheSun 3 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun you apparently didn't understand my first comment, so I explained, there is no jam. I'm getting the feeling that english is far from being your first language.
yeah I already subscribed to your channel a couple of months ago
flyingturtle22 3 months ago
@flyingturtle22
I also note you are a fan of Hitchens.....please feel free to view the largest assemble of Hitchens videos anywhere on the web on my page...I wish you good health and cheer.
Killer0fTheSun 3 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun I believe in God because of the evidence. For me not to believe would be unreasonable and illogical. I do not believe in "every other god" because there is no evidence to cause such a belief.
drew24p 3 months ago
@drew24p I'll go ahead and ask the next obvious question- what exactly is your evidence?
EpicPhalosophy 3 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy I believe that the cosmological, teleological, moral, and biblical arguments for the existence of God are sound.
drew24p 3 months ago
@drew24p In other words, you have nothing that you can show physically or objectively. People can believe in whatever arguments they would like, but that is not evidence that something is true. Those arguments can be made of ANY monotheistic god, or really any god.
Just because I accept the logic of evolution, doesn't make it true. What makes it true is DNA, genetics, fossils, taxonomy, neurology, biology, cell theory, etc, etc.
So I'll ask you again: what is your evidence?
EpicPhalosophy 3 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy Do you disagree with the cosmological and teleological argument? Fossils, DNA, genetics, biology, ect., provide additional evidence that there is a God and the Bible is reliable.
drew24p 3 months ago
@drew24p Sorry to inform you, the Bible has nothing to do with any branch of science. Except a few instances in which it is completely wrong. Let's take biology.
Leviticus 11:20-23, for instance, claims that insects have four legs. Before the fall of man, there was no death; so tapeworms, barracudas, T-rexes, lions, etc all had to eat fruit- all of these species would die. God condemned snakes to "eat dust." They don't.
I could go on. And yes, those arguments are not irrefutable.
EpicPhalosophy 3 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy Unless science is fiction, the big bang theory and macro evolution have nothing to do with science. Let's take for instance that no common ancestor has been found and that "scientists" have produced many so called common ancestors that are later identified as false. Usually the announcements are far louder than the retractions. I do believe we have a common ancestor and his name is Noah and her name is Eve :-)
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p That is simply not true. All it takes is a 2 minute Google search. If you believe the flood story literally, it's interesting that we have artifacts of Chinese culture from 10,000 BC when the flood supposedly occurred 2000 BC.
en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
This wasn't even what my last post was about. You said nothing to refute what I said about the Bible. Science doesn't need to disprove the Bible. The Bible does a good enough job disproving itself.
EpicPhalosophy 2 months ago
Comment removed
drew24p 2 months ago
Comment removed
drew24p 2 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy For the thousands of so-called biblical errors that skeptics have found there has been an equal amount of rebuttals. You can do a quick Google search of an "errors" rebuttal (including the one above). It is up to the person to decide if the explanations are sufficient. But what I have found is that many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p Except that as a christian, you are morally responsible for being able to answer these. 1 Peter 3:15. So really I would be doing you a favor by getting you to be able to answer these. I do this so people actually start critically analyzing the Bible instead of just accepting everything they're spoon-fed. And eventually they might see why it's just ridiculous.
EpicPhalosophy 2 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy I appreciate your honesty. You show “errors” in the Bible with the intent of showing others how ridiculous the Bible is. Like I said earlier, many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth. Christians do have a responsibility to search for truth, know it, proclaim it, and defend it (1Peter 3:15; Proverbs 26:4; Matthew 7:6). Thank you for the reminder and please take some time to listen (Matthew 13:15).
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p No, you misunderstand. What's ridiculous is what you have to rationalize by believing the Bible. You have to rationalize the Bible saying insects have four legs. You have to rationalize Yahweh sending two bears to maul 42 young boys to death for making fun of a bald man. I was a christian for 18 years and I've compiled a 37 page Word document of everything (I've found) that you have to rationalize in order to believe any of the Bible literally.
EpicPhalosophy 2 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy As I said earlier, there are thousands of so-called biblical errors that skeptics have found that have caused many to view the Bible as ridiculous. Some, like you, have put them into lists. What you believe to be rationalizing I believe to be understanding. Often times when truth rears its ugly head the skeptic moves on to the next "error" on his list. Many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p That's what a rational person does if something is supposed to be perfect- check for imperfections. If the Bible is perfectly, objectively moral and the actions of Yahweh are morally perfect in every single verse of the Bible, then Christians must defend the genocides Yahweh committed, burning profane daughters to death, Yahweh threatening mothers that they will have to eat their own children, etc
If you "understand" these and not just rationalize them, then.. wow. Just, wow.
EpicPhalosophy 2 months ago
@EpicPhalosophy Many skeptics are more interested in disproving the Bible than finding the truth....wow
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p
So your an atheist to those gods as i am an atheist to yours. You also dismiss those same gods on same premise i dismiss yours
Killer0fTheSun 3 months ago
@Killer0fTheSunI also dismiss your “creator” on the same premise that you dismiss mine - lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary. I choose to believe that there is a God based on evidence, reason, and logic. You choose to believe that there is not a God based on evidence, reason, and logic. One of us is wrong. Consequences for being wrong? Me, nothing... you, eternal torment.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p
Consequences? I laugh at such a stupid response. Your so entirely insecure that you need the threats of hell to try and "scare" the non-believer.Im not scared,,,,and fuck you and your cult.
Killer0fTheSun 2 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun Yes, consequences. There are consequences and/or effect of what a person believes. Hell is what you, I, and every other person in this world deserves for continually breaking God's laws. It isn't a scare tactic but rather a reasonable and logical consequence. Can you imagine a murderer echoing your thoughts after you inform him of our justice system and the consequences for his actions?
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p
Hell is deserved to everyone? Welll you sir lack a conscience then. But i expect this from the monotheistic believer. When one has to believe or wants to believe that a being creates or allows such a place that person is lacking empathy. Scare tactic? Yes it is...it doesnt work any longer. And it wont anymore.
Killer0fTheSun 2 months ago
@drew24p "It isn't a scare tactic but rather a reasonable and logical consequence"
I don't know if you're a parent, but I'm sure you can sympathize with this analogy anyway.
If your child goes against your wishes by sneaking a cookie from the kitchen cabinet - despite knowing full-well that it's wrong - would you consider it "reasonable" or "logical" to douse them in gasoline and set them on fire? Even if only for a few seconds or minutes?
If not, why do it for an eternity?
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred No, I don't believe the crime in that situation fits the punishment. As a parent with two children I would put them in time out and speak to them about what they did wrong. I don't believe your illustration is a good representation of the consequences for sinning.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p Oh it's a very good representation. Because many "sins" that will send people to Hell are no more malicious than sneaking a cookie from the cookie jar. And even the more extreme "sins" such as murder should be punished with equality - a loss of the sinner's life. That is perfectly fair.
And yet, your God wishes to not only allow the sinner to lose his life, but also burn in horrific agony for an eternity.
That's fair to you?
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred If a grown man stole something and you sent your son in his place to reap the legal consequences. You sent your son to receive the punishment that he deserved. But instead of repenting of his actions, accepting your gift, and being thankful he continued to steal. Not only did he continue to steal but mocked/laughed/ridiculed you and the son that went to jail on his behalf. Would you welcome such a man in your home forever or would you leave him outside (Matthew 22)?
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p I would obviously leave him outside. However, I would not force him to sit outside burning alive.
But the problem with the Christian mind is that burning alive is the only other alternative. Not only that, but they feel it is a just and fair alternative.
That is not morality. That is a morality corrupted. And they project this bloodlust onto their God; whom they claim is both "loving" and "just".
Do you not see the chaos in such a mindset?
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I think you might have a distorted view of the Christian God. I believe the scriptures plainly speak about the degrees of punishment a person will receive in hell. Yes, those who do not obey God and receive his mercy/grace will be separated from Him for eternity (because of their actions) but the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the sins committed (Luke 12:42-48). If you would like more info on this please let me know.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p You see, ultimately, this is the difference between me and your God: I have a balanced idea of what is truly "fair". He does not. He allows a sinner to die for his sins (Romans 6:23), but then he takes things an unecessary step further by forcing that sinner to suffer in unimaginable agony and torment. THis would be unjust if it was allowed to occur for even just a day, but he allows it to uccor for years and decades and millinia and aeons.
That is wrong. Your God is not just.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Occur*
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Without God there is no such thing as "truly fair." There is only subjective opinions of what each person believes to be fair. I don't think I have to spell out the horrific consequences of a godless society. Many today are educated in and have accepted the philosophical movement of postmodernism.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p "I don't think I have to spell out the horrific consequences of a Godless society"
If you did, you'd be describing Sweden, in which religious persons are a minority. Oddly enough, they also have the lowest crime rate.
However, this is far from the topic at hand. You're blatantly ignoring God's extreme overkill when it comes to punishment. Regardless of the severity of their punishment, your God forces them to endure it for millenia. That is simply wrong. If your God can't see that
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@drew24p (Part 2) then he is not worthy of being called a "just and loving God", because he clearly reasons as a bloodthirsty and psychopathic adolescent. In which case, I don't know why anyone with any dignity would want to worship the bastard in the first place.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. God doesn't want anyone to spend eternity away from Him (2Peter 3:9). God, being completely good, holy, and perfect can not (yes, there are things God can not do) be in fellowship with or accept those who are ungodly, imperfect, and unholy. It is not God that chooses for us to spend eternity in hell it is our actions that dictate that. We choose to do what is wrong and therefor we choose separation from God and hell.
drew24p 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred I can sympathize with your anger towards what you believe to be god but I really think you have a misunderstanding of the Christian God. From my perspective, you are calling the judge a bastard for throwing someone in jail for committing a crime. For receiving the punishment for the crime they committed. Not only that, but you are calling him a bastard while he is offering you a way to stay out of jail -turn from your evil ways, accept my mercy, and do what is good.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p I'm calling him a bastard because he's not simply "throwing someone in jail"; he's throwing them in jail AND lighting them on fire. By your logic, the mistreatment, rape, assault, and any other number of additional horrors men suffer after having had their freedom taken away is an excusable part of their prison sentence.
Are you really this dense, or are you brainwashed like the rest of them? You're completely ignoring the overkill in your God's punishments and instead, are trying
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@drew24p (Part 2) to justify why there needs to be a punishment. Punishment is fine. But that punishment needs to be fair, and your God has not a fucking clue what "fair" is. As I said, he's a psychopath. He lets people die for their sins (refer to the scripture I noted earlier) because "the wages sin pays is death", but then he takes it a whole sadistic step further by torturing them.
And not only that, but he allows them to be tortured FOREVER. Did it not ever occur to you that maybe after
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@drew24p (Part 3) a little while, they might have suffered enough? That they would have suffered fairly according to whatever pety crime your God had convicted them of?
Let's put this into an illustration again. You seem to think it's ok to set your child on fire for sneaking a cookie from the jar. Ok. A bit twisted, but ok. They're your kids. But let's put this in more relatable terms:
You simply ground your child for sneaking that cookie. You told them not to, they did it anyway, it seems
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Would a person guilty of sin be in a better position to determine how long sin should be punished than a sinless, perfect God (1 John 1:5)? Maybe we should start asking murderers how long they believe their sentence should be and/or what their punishment should be. Seeds, do you think it would be just for God to send some people to hell for a minute for their actions? 10 min? an hour? a year? a decade? a life?
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p (Part 4) fair to send them to their room for a while. That is a just punishment.
What you're suggesting, though, is that they should not only be sent to their room for an hour or two. No, they're to be sent to their room indefinitely. For the rest of their days; never to leave.
Surely you can see how that is complete overkill. Having said that, it amazes me how you are so blind that you CAN'T see how Hellfire - something so much worse than being sent to your room - is more overkill
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@drew24p (Part 5) than the analogy I've presented.
You Christians are absolutely fucking amazing. It floors me that such a mindset can still exist in this day and age.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred "Fair" is subjective unless there is an absolute objective moral authority that determines what "fair" is. I am sure there are people that believe it is "fair" to kill you because of your ethnicity, "fair" to kill the unborn, "fair" to molest children, and the list goes on to every imaginable evil. My point is, who are you to say what is fair? It is merely your opinion. You say God isn't fair but purely on the basis of emotions and subjective thought. Cont.
drew24p 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred Thomas Jefferson put forward a law to castrate those who participated in homosexuality. He put this law forward in an effort to be more "fair" and merciful to homosexuals. The punishment in that day for homosexuality was death. Was every state in the union fair to make homosexuality a felony? Was Thomas Jefferson fair? Or are we fair today? cont.
drew24p 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred My point is that you can cry out "that isn't fair" all day but unless you have an absolute objective authority to back up your moral claims they have as much weight as those who have deemed psychopathic. I can't argue with subjectivity and opinions. Yes seeds of hatred, you feel that God is unfair and psychopathic.
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p I don't need an objective authority to see that burning alive for all eternity is unfair and unjust. That's what makes me better than your God. Even I, a simple human being, can see how sadistic he is. You would see it too were you not as brainwashed as you are.
Also, my name is in reference to pies. I hate cherry pie.
See how trivial and irrelevant that is to my argument? It's bullshit, of course, but my name's meaning is as irrelevant as irrelevant can be. Don't be a moron.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred You are right, you don't need an objective authority to feel that burning alive for all eternity is unfair and unjust, to feel I am brainwashed, to feel like you are better than the God of the Bible, to feel that God is sadistic. I understand your feelings seeds of hatred and I appreciate you taking some time to express them to me.
drew24p 2 months ago
Comment removed
Imperativism 1 month ago
@Imperativism God created the Hell. God promised the outcome of those who disobey him. God allows Hell to exist. God sees it as a fit punishment for a lifetime of pety crimes.
Your God sends people to Hell; regardless of how much you want to twist the words around to make him look innocent.
He is not.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred Quantum physics proves conclusively that the universe is not deterministic but statistical with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Chaos theory proves that initial conditions of Einstienian systems are sensitive to random flucations in the quantum vacuum so that 100% perfect prediction is impossible. Most importantly, psychophysics now conclusively demonstrates that free will not only exists, but in fact relies on quantum gravity in its processes through Orch-OR.
You lose.
Imperativism 1 month ago
@Imperativism "Wuantum Physics" - or what most of us like to call "What-If"-Science.
In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with your God sending people to Hell. I spoke about Him sending people. Not the choices that they made that got them the one-way ticket.
I do not lose, because you did not argue my point. You tip-toed around it.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred Quantum*
I'm drunk xD
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred There's a difference between rhetoric and logic; rhetoric is emotionally persuasive speech. Logic is the discipline of proper reasoning through language. You can have elegantly fluent rhetorical arguments that strike an emotional chord, like Harris' did in his debate against William Lane Craig, but lose the argument because they fail to address the facts, like Harris lost against Craig. Likewise, so is the case here: your point substitutes logic with the rhetorical.
Imperativism 1 month ago
@Imperativism You have to be trolling.
As I stated, your God allows Hell to exist. He allows people to go there as a - in his twisted view of morality - "just punishment" for sin. They can choose to be sent to Hell all they want, but your God is ultimately the one who governs all things, correct? If that is the case, then he sends people to Hell. Unless you are suggesting that he governs all things, except where one goes when they die.
That is logic plain and simple.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
Comment removed
Imperativism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeedsOfHatred There's a contradiction in your question. If human beings have free will, as is implied by mankind's capacity to choose their spiritual destiny: Heaven or Hell, then you cannot seriously claim that God governs mankind without contradicting yourself and negating the validity of the question. We either have free-will and thus are not governed by God, or are governed by God and lack free-will. So no, your logic isn't plain and simple. It's self-contradictory
Imperativism 1 month ago
@Imperativism *Sigh* I swear to god you people are more dense than a black fucking hole.
Just nevermind.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
Comment removed
DJDadblastOFFICIAL 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Imperativism
SeedsOfHatred...Human beings do not have free will. Free will is not even possible. We learn everything we know. Everything has causality. Even our personalities are completely contingent on our environment and our biology (particularly during the cognitive development periods of our life). You don't choose to be alive, you don't choose your biology, and you don't choose your environment. There is no free will.
DJDadblastOFFICIAL 1 month ago
@drew24p your god doesn't give you absolute objective morality. Even if he/she existed, they have absolutely failed to communicate their "absolute objective morality" to us mere humans in a way that isn't completely opaque and open to interpretation.
Dawkins007 1 month ago
@Dawkins007 The problem isn't with the writer of the laws or the laws themselves. The problem is with our ignorance, unwillingness, and/or our proclivity to disobey them. Its obeying the law that is the problem, not the law itself.
drew24p 1 month ago
@drew24p Do you believe that gays should be put to death?
Dawkins007 1 month ago
@Dawkins007 Objectively, I wouldn't see it as morally unjust for a homosexual to be put to death for his actions. But I also don't see it (objectively) as morally unjust for a homosexual not to be put to death for his actions. Subjectively, I would not support (would vote against) a law that put homosexuals to death.
drew24p 1 month ago
@drew24p you don't obey your bible then and have proved that the bible is not an objective moral authority to any sane human being.
Dawkins007 1 month ago
@Dawkins007 I would honestly just give it up with this one. He's beyond reason. It's a shitty prospect, but sometimes we just have to let these creatures exist. Even if it infuriates us to do so.
They're simply too far-gone to be changed.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@SeedsOfHatred Yep you're probably right. But it may be that some fair minded wavering believer reads the comment and it helps convince them to abandon their attachment to bronze age superstitions!
Dawkins007 1 month ago
@Dawkins007 This is true. In fact, that's often the only thing that keeps me debating with certain people - even after I know that there is no chance in hell that they'll be swayed.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
Comment removed
drew24p 1 month ago
Comment removed
drew24p 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeedsOfHatred In your subjective moral world, you believe it would be moral and just to kill me and those who think like me. You wrote... "people such as yourself deserve death. Not as a punishment for your twisted and f****d-up ideas of morality, but as a simple precaution. As a cultural cleansing." I am labeled as unreasonable for turning the other cheek while you are the reasonable one by suggesting I should be killed. When subjective morals become the absolute - scary.
drew24p 1 month ago
Comment removed
drew24p 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dawkins007 I believe you might have a misunderstanding of the Bible. The Law of Moses that was given to Israel is different than the Law of Liberty that was given to the world (Jews & Gentiles). The law of Moses was more of a theocracy while the Law of Liberty (New Covenant) is not. One established the governing authorities (Law of Moses) while the other has us subject ourselves to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7).
drew24p 1 month ago
@drew24p AND he commits these horrific injustices while claiming to be loving and just. Does he think we're stupid and can't see his glaring psychopathy, or does he simply not care?
I'm sorry for the multiple responses, by the way. These things just continue to come to me and I feel they need to be said.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun Also, I am will to accept the consequences and/or effect if I am wrong. I would be abstaining from the pleasure of sin for nothing, my preaching would be in vain, the hope I have for those that have perished in Christ is lost, my faith is worthless, I am still in my sins, and Christians out of all mankind should be the most pitied (1Corinthians 15: 13-19).
drew24p 2 months ago
@drew24p
In the future christianity will die and another religion will replace it. You lived in denial.
Killer0fTheSun 2 months ago
What on earth are u talking about ? science is just explanation how body works or how the universe works ! but by knowing how body works does that mean you know that nobody created that body to work that way ? You are missing very crucial point ! how on earth by knowing the function of the car you can say there is no one who made that car to work that way ! WE KNOW HOW A CAR WORKS THEREFORE NOBODY MADE IT TO WORK THAT WAY , IT JUST CAME BY ACCIDENT ! AND THAT IS LOGICAL WEEEEHHHHHHHHH
MrCobra811 3 months ago
@peeps1ism So, all natural phenomena are good?
All human behaviors are good?
meaninter03 3 months ago
@peeps1ism You are correct. And you missed the point. Religion was mankind's first attempt at science, morality, politics, etc. However, because it was our first,it was our worst. We now have better knowledge and institutions. Religion is a natural phenomenon, but like the dinosaurs, its time has come.
tcktrc 3 months ago
Comment removed
Mornys 3 months ago
Comment removed
Mornys 3 months ago
@Patienthomist
What evidence do you have for the existence/nature of this "first being" other than your own imagination (or the collective imagination of the society that raised you to believe in this being)?
On a more philosophical note, what constitutes a "being"? Is it necessarily sentient? Is it the first instance of "life"? In the case of the latter, you maaaaay be paying homage or reverence to a single-cells bacteria-like organism. Lame?
katertots87 4 months ago
caused (when authentic) by the First Cause; not only does it makes sense from the unmoved mover proof (which shows that the first Being is not in motion, and therfore not material/energy), but this spiritual stuff points to a spiritual source -- the same first Being, which is the source of all Reality, including intelligence. So the First Being is intelligent, powerful, has personhood, etc. .. since all that stuff is found in the fabrice of reality. Your thoughts?
patientthomist 4 months ago
Ok .. here is my take at this point in time ... when I say god, I don't mean the god of any particular religion, but rather the God of all religions. I don't think all religions have the same degree of truth ... I think we've witnessed serious privations of truth in some religions in recent times. It can't be true for example that flying planes into buildings filled with innocent people is morally good, and so Islamic fundamentism has radical flaws in its truth claims .. next post ...
patientthomist 4 months ago
The deductive argument for this analogy in relation to your position can be expressed in this BARBARA categorical syllogism:
Major p: All infinite regression claims against God's existence are impossibilities in accounting for current being and motion.
Minor p: All essences of rememberthename33's arguments are infinite regression claims against God's existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, all essences of r33's arguments are impossibilites in accounting for current being and motion.
patientthomist 4 months ago
patientthomist: You must be kidding. In the OT God orders killing and more killing and if that is not tyrannical I don't know what is. He wants people to make sacrifices in his name, give their daughters up for rape, murder homosexuals and little children. Deuteronomy, Leviticus to name but two books; the list is endless:Read the Bible - loathsome book that it is.Even the ten commandments where it says "Thou shalt not kill" - Jews only, you can kill Medianites, Hittites and anyone else.
rohansrider 4 months ago
Who cares about God? Get on with your life. Morality does not need a deity. I am so bored of this argument about whether he exists or not. Good old Sam Harris, excellent example regarding devils and epilepsy. As we move on, religion will become redundant and all the lies, falsehoods and inaccuracies will be gone forever and all but the few will be free. Anyway, the Old Testament god is a tyrant,a misogynist, a racist and a bully full of wrath. What sensible person wants to worship that?
rohansrider 4 months ago
@rohansrider
If there is no God, then Sam Harris can abuse you and your family, and there technically is nothing "wrong" with that. The Old Testament God is not a tyrant, but the stubborn people he was trying to lead to himself would not open their hearts to the love that is His nature. Every OT example points to that reality.
patientthomist 4 months ago
Sam Harris is the hottest scientist ever! :)
bekacynthia 5 months ago
@DXSXDXSXD
"Religion is lies" is an invalid set of words. I can prove God exists.
patientthomist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Sam Harris was really religious and in tune with God wavelength, he would have recognize that religion is just a tool to reach God and not a way to try understand reality as he portraits it. He was either a poser or he is now willingly a deceiver.
Either way, he just blew out his credibility. He got nothing to offer. He is another sad deluded and lost atheist that hasn't known God and never will if he doesn't open his heart truly and honestly.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Questions;
If human free-will and self-awareness as an individual is mere illusion leaving leading to biochemical determinism and thus no individual culpability in choice of actions how is anything evil or wrong?
If there's no such thing as objective morality, just human preference to well being but a child molester has differing ideas about well being than his victims, how is that a "moral landscape" and not just a mere "preference landscape"? Harris has very low philosophical understandings.
WILLTHEWGMAN 5 months ago
religion= greed, corruption, hypocrites and ignorance.
science= facts, knowledge, and actual benifits to mankind.
alex123837 6 months ago 12
@alex123837
Actually, religion is the virtue by which we give God what God is owed. God's existence is not a matter of faith ... it's a matter of reasoning from an empirically verifiable experience -- just like what is done in science. To not know that is to be dull of mind. If you want to learn how to prove God's existence by reason, let me know :)
patientthomist 5 months ago
Sam Harris is quickly becoming my favorite Atheist - a close 2nd to Christopher Hitchens at this point. Harris is brilliant.
MrKeenoRossi 6 months ago
We used religions for our Politics, Jesus Christ was punished cz he was a threat for Roman Empire because he believe in helping poor, Muhammad was punished because he became great danger for the wealth and power of Arabs. Muhammad talk about rights of poor, orphans, women, children and even animals. Religions came for Men but how can politicians want the rights of poor?
blueskyblackthunder 6 months ago
Religion a science ? Stop right away
no1hoopsman 7 months ago
Sam Harris is one of the biggest hypocrites around.
According to him, terrorism is bad (but if Zionist Jews do it it's OK).
This guy is not an atheist in the true sense of the word at all. His allegiance is clearly with Zion.
Notice how he is happy to criticize Islam and Christianity endlessly, but not the slightest peep about Judaism (whose teachings are arguably even more depraved)...?
OrthodoxDarwinist 7 months ago
Sam Harris is one our greatest thinkers! Religion will un-make our world if we don't keep the nuts in their cage. See "Religious fanatic debates Atheist" on my channel for clarity.
Sweence 8 months ago
@Sweence have you seen Harris ("world's greatest thinker") get owned by William Lane Craig in a debate on his book moral landscape? --It's on Youtube.
Craig's critiques were so devastating Harris couldn't respond to them. Instead he kept changing the subject to "hell" or other random topics that didn't fit the debate's topic of "Morality: Better With God or without God"
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 You must be the only one who thinks that Craig won that debate. Myself and many others certainly didnt think so. Craig is pretty bad, but Lennox is aweful. "god did it" is the only evidence they present, and this is really terrible evidence. Craig is a religious zealot pretending to be a philosopher. There is no rational intelligibility of the universe, despite the crazy ramblings of Lennox. Lennox is ostracized from Catholicism because he's too crazy.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
I'm definitely not the only person who thinks he won the debate. Read the comments below it on Youtube for others who agree. lol.
That was one of the most silly youtube comments I've ever heard about two men who between them have FIVE Ph.D.'s . . . must be pretty smart for "Crazy zealots" .. . gee, who would ever give them such degrees . . Oxford? my o my.... what were they thinking?
"god did it".... did you listen to the cosmo, teleological, and moral arguments given by craig??
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 Anyone can get a phD. Ray Comfort claims to have one as well. Lennox's doctorate is in mathematics if im not mistaken. Believing in fairy tales does not disqualify you from a mathematics doctorate. Craig is not a real philosopher because he has only studied christianity and been educated in christianity. He also has a degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity College, doesnt that sound like an objective institution. For his doctorate he studied the bible.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl
This is plainly false. Craig has TWO Ph'D.s . . His MA was in philosophy (not bible) from Trinity. His Ph'D's are in Philosophy and a second in Systematic Theology.
Lennox has THREE Ph'Ds: in Science and Mathematics and i believe the third is Systematic Theology.. He still lectures at Oxford.. if he's so crazy, such a prestigious school would fire him.
"anyone can get a doctorate" . . do you have a doctorate? mr smarty pants. :)
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 He got his doctorate studying the bible and the resurrection. What is his science doctorate in? Ive never heard of a general doctorate in science. John Lennox teaches mathematics at Oxford, not religion or philosophy. No I do not have a doctorate, I have a B.A. History and a M.A. in Epistemology. Though none of this qualifies me as anything more than a novice I admit. If I could afford to go back and get my doctorate I would.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl You are wrong. His PhD are in Systematic Theology and Philosophy (Univ of Birmingham). He received two MA's from TRinity (philosophy of religion). I don't know where you are getting your info. Gosh, even wikipedia gets it right, but you can't? I've heard him on his podcasts talk about his degrees and books (podcast: Reasonable Faith on iTunes).
Lennox lectures on philosophy of science and mathematics at Oxford. He also lectures on religion and ethics.
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 For his doctorate he got at the University of Munich he studied the resurrection. John Lennox is part of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. Otherwise he is just an Oxford Mathematics professor. You shouldn't get all of your information from wikipedia.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 You're kidding right? Harris demolished Craig with logic, evidence and common sense. He provided conclusively that a person can have a moral foundation without an imaginary god. Craig bases his thesis on an imaginary god and an old iron-age book. This is problematic. He doesn't provide one convincing argument. He did speak louder though. You're just drinking the christian kool-aid.
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence no. i am not kidding. belief in God is no joke, neither is the human state of sinfulness that he will judge us all for.
Harris appealed to emotions and irrelevant topics the entire night. and did not address craig's arguments (which craig made known . .example: "is" and "ought" distinction) . .
Can't i just claim that you are drinking the atheist kool-aid? (at least my "kool aid" doesn't lead me to hell. sorry. this stuff ain't a joke. eternity is stake sweence. please reconsider.)
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 You are just another sick, deluded christian who's world-view comes from a magic book with talking animals. Religion poisons everything. Religion stifles intellectual thinking. Atheists are the most philanthropic, moral people on Earth. The prisons are filled with Christians. Please stop with your make-believe horse-shit.
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence
Thank you for demonstrating the moral prowess of atheists by calling me names and cussing me out on Youtube. This is simply unnecessary and rude.
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87 Being sick and deluded are not necessarily insults. If you believe in the stories from the bible as in talking snakes, virgin births, flat earth and a geocentric universe, then you are indeed sick and deluded. Period. These are cerebral conditions that can be cured.
Sweence 7 months ago
@Sweence LOL Gee you sound so sincerely concerned :/
but i'd rather continue believing my "make believe horse-sh**"
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@mkwheeland87
He can only represent the moral prowess of himself. What makes you think he could represent the moral prowess of other people? A bit of a desperate swipe at atheists there over one silly comment on youTube.
SamCoreJ 7 months ago
@SamCoreJ
I am not referring to Sam Harris. I was referring to @Sweence who cussed me out on here and then went on to tell me how morally superior atheists were. I was merely pointing out his double-mindedness. :)
I was not trying to take a "desperate swipe" at atheists. In fact, I believe the whole conversation of "who lives morally superior lives: atheists or theists" is a moot point.
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
Religion is a strawman.
The truth is that the function that most of the most common elements are essential working parts inside of us that obey a preexisting written word.
watch?v=t0dcH9RFfX8
JungleJargon 8 months ago
Religion is a failed science? There would be no modern science if it wasn't for religion.
SudanCarib 8 months ago
@SudanCarib ignoring for the moment the validity of that statement, which I find to be bunk, Harris' point is exactly that religion was the first attempt at science... a failed one. to say science would not have come about without the mythology and magical thinking that science was developed to eliminate from honest inquiry is manifestly false and foolish. Such magical thinking is not unique to our species either, if you don't believe me look up skinners superstitious pidgen.
skaboss3178 8 months ago
@SudanCarib that's exactly what he's saying, you don't understand his argument.
jackworrall89 7 months ago
@SudanCarib
right on dude.
John Lennox says it best "science is cutting off the branch on which it sits by denying God and the rational intelligibility of the universe" (in his debate with Richard Dawkins).
mkwheeland87 7 months ago
@SudanCarib Science has grown despite religion. There would certainly be science without religion. Its like you're saying that people wouldnt wonder how things work without religion. Nothing has held science back more than religion. Science was around before religion and will be around after religion. Some people just prefer fairy tales to the truth and science.
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl Religion was around during the neolithic and prehistoric times like animal worship and i think science didn't come until the ancient greek times. If science was around before religion then why don't we have our star wars galactic civilization by now? Religion will be here no matter what. People need to have some sort of specialty and divinity in their lives. Study the philosophy of religion
FYI it's not a fairy tale, We have alot of historical evidence for christianity anyway. : )
SudanCarib 7 months ago
@SudanCarib Our species is still very young, and nothing has held science and intellectual advancement back more than religion. Not that we would have anything like a star wars civilization by now. As people have gotten smarter over time, the amount of gods most people believe in is shrinking. Now most people only believe in one god, so that is only one more god than an atheist. Do people need divinity even if its fake? Please give me some historical evidence for christianity's truth
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl It's not fake. Religion is about exploring something greater than ourselves, not just comfort. Man is spiritual by nature universally. We are not aliens like we're some random intelligent lifeforms who just rose out of bacteria. We need sense of self. Did religion held Galileo, Issac newton, Copernicus Descartes and all the great religious scientist back? I don't think so. Because of the age of reason people started believing rationally and logically in one god (deism).
SudanCarib 6 months ago
@SudanCarib If its not fake then you must have some kind of evidence right? Religion is just contemporary mythology. Those men were not religious scientists, they were simply scientists. And look how Galileo was treated by the church, as a heretic. Yes many scientists have been held back by religion. Religion is holding us back right now, especially in stem cell reseach, because religious groups think a petri dish with a few cells has a soul. Still no evidence?
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl Galileo was agreed upon by scholar church men and he supported evidence to them that was not a threat to Christianity. The reason he was tried because the pope says don't teach about heliocentric ism as a fact because there is no scientific evidence for it. What did he do? he did it anyway and boom he was tried. But they never tortured him.
Throughout my research, These scientist talked about God a lot in their work. Kepler's "mysterium cosmographum". etc
SudanCarib 6 months ago
@SudanCarib Galileo was considered a heretic and tried by a christian inquision. What the fuck does the pope know about science. A thousand years ago, Islam was leading the way in mathematics, but do you think that this validates Islam? Also, many scientists pretended to be christians in order to get research grants, since the church had all the money. You still havent offered any historical evidence for christianitys validity.
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl what does the pope know about science? Just because he is religious doesn't mean he is dumb. I don't think Galileo or newton pretended. They were very devout Christians. Newton also practiced alchemy. They weren't closet atheist. I have read their works in the library.
Google this: Historicity of Jesus, Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Jesus, Samuel's tomb, Pontius pilate.
SudanCarib 6 months ago
@SudanCarib Research the some history on the popes, they werent all good men. I never said the pope was dumb either. Newton was a christian, but had to hide some of his beliefs from the church in fear of punishment. None of this validate or gives any proof to christianity. As for what you asked me to google, I believe that Jesus was a real person, but I do not believe he was in any way divine, just a regular guy. There is no such thing as dead people coming back to life or virgin births
MrKGatl 6 months ago
@MrKGatl Well we could come into agreement that he was just a normal philosopher who taught nice things. His biological father's name was saint Joseph and his mother was Mary. I believe he had a wife too. Her name was Mary Magdalene.
SudanCarib 6 months ago
@TheAlexington
And what do religions know about them? I mean, that we don't know from normal human experience or from literature and art and philosophy etc.?
oliveranthonyrowland 8 months ago
shit on religion
thescorpionking2020 8 months ago
he is beautiful
HallonTaton 8 months ago
People always say "well it's just about having faith" faith is useless, it's what is true that matters. Believing something with no evidence is not a good thing, it's just being gullible.
rememberthename33 8 months ago 8
@rememberthename33
Faith must be reasonable. Faith is an intellectual act assenting to truth under the command of the will by God's grace. God's existence is not a matter of faith. I can prove God exists by reason.
patientthomist 5 months ago
@patientthomist faith is not reasonable. you cannot prove gods existence through reason, but id like to see you try.
rememberthename33 5 months ago
@rememberthename33
OK ... not much room here to write, but let me summarize. Tthere cannot be an infinite regression of causes or motions; otherwise you can't exist or move. There must be a spiritual first cause/unmoved mover, because all material and energy is in motion. This BEING must also be omniscient and omnipotent since all forms of intelligence and being proceed from the first BEING -- which are the qualities of GOD. How would you refute this argument?
patientthomist 5 months ago
@patientthomist what the hell!
bekacynthia 5 months ago
@patientthomist how do you not see the problem with that argument? you've assumed that because we don't know something then it MUST have a "spiritual first cause" this is a typical argument from ignorance (or god of the gaps fallacy) and it also begs the question because if you've explained hat everything started with god then you are now stuck with the question "where did god come from" which is an infinite regression in itself because you will always end up with that same question.
rememberthename33 5 months ago
@rememberthename33
I like your reply, but it reveals two typical erroneous objections. The first cause must be spiritual (immaterial and non-energy) because it is unmoved. Think of it carefully -- what matter or energy is not in motion?
The set of words "what caused God?" is an invalid set of terms. It's like asking "Can God create a rock so big that he can't move it?". The point of infinite regress is that we can't pass through an unlimited chain of causes to reach YOUR existence.
patientthomist 5 months ago
@patientthomist no the first cause doesn't have to be spiritual, you've just assumed that it must be spiritual which is an argument from ignorance because we don't know what the first cause is.
and "what caused god" is a perfectly valid question. you are essentially saying everything needs a beginning and that beginning is god, but god doesn't need a beginning which is a special pleading fallacy. the point of the rock question points out that an omnipotent god is impossible.
rememberthename33 5 months ago
@rememberthename33
You think that reasoning that an unmoved mover is immaterial because it's not in motion is an argument from ignorance? Not true. Look up argument from ignorance, dude, or take a logic class. You think that I'm saying "everything needs a beginning". I am not saying that, but most atheists think that's the argument. I'm saying that there cannot be an infinite regress -- much different. Your errors on these two points are keeping you in the dark.
patientthomist 5 months ago
@patientthomist you have asserted there must be a 'mover' and that mover is unmoved, and therefore must be spiritual, none of which have any evidence for.you're saying there can't be an infinite regress therefore god did it, i get it, i've heard the arguments plenty of times and it's the exact same as saying "everything can't come from nothing therefore god did it" or "we don't know where rain comes from so it must be god"
if it's not a typical argument from ignorance then explain how
rememberthename33 4 months ago
@rememberthename33
No evidence? There is evidence -- all the items that surround you, and your own body. There is nothing material or nothing energy which is "still" or motionless -- go check with your physics professor. An unmoved being is still, and therefore is not material. Motion comes from a Motionless being -- deductive logic demands that reality from a sense experience of our own existence. You could only say that deductive logic does not produce truth, but then use it to say that.
patientthomist 4 months ago
@patientthomist so everything around me is evidence of a spiritual mover? I can just say that everything around you is evidence for a flying unicorn, that's how weak that statement is. "motion comes from a motionless being" that's a nice claim but you will have to prove it, just saying it doesn't make it true. That's not deductive logic, that's a textbook definition of a god of the gaps argument.
rememberthename33 4 months ago
@rememberthename33
It is true. Everything around you is evidence of a spiritual mover. God teaches through nature. It can't be a flying unicorn since that would be in MOTION. You're not "getting" the motion argument. You are currently in motion; your motion was set in motion by a previous mover (parents, Darwinian evolution, Big Bang, etc.). That chain can't be infinite ... if it was, we would never reach your current motion. Therefore there is a first mover -- not moved by another.
patientthomist 4 months ago
@patientthomist "everything around you is evidence of a magic unicorn. the magic unicorn teaches through nature" because there is nothing to support these claims they can be used as evidence for literally anything and do not point to your god at all. I get the motion argument, and as far as we know all that "motion" was set in motion by the big bang, and before that we do not know, and to pretend that you actually do know, and that it was not just A god but YOUR god is laughable.
rememberthename33 4 months ago