i think he would say if you wer born in india you would be a hindu, of born mid east you would be muslim, if you wer born in viking days you would believein thor, the usual BS he answers with that avoids every question thrown at him, richard dalkins cant prove atheism, i say to you richard dalkings if you wer born in a house full of athiest you will believe in atheism, poor mr dalkins i will pray for him
if god created universe why cant we live on other planets , and why is god only letting us live on earth , why not mars , saturn , uranus , jupiter why is it so difficult to travel to mars , that only a NASA pathfinder can go .... seriously
your trying hard to make god exist but he doesn't. We have very good evidence evolution i true and the bible is wrong. Like Dawkins will say, Why do you believe in jesus and not muhammad in the muslim faith? All i can say is it is all in your mind and religion is a trick, u are just falling for the trick. As a "normal" person, i wish there is a god...But sadly however much i want to believe it, It is extremely unlikely. I dont believe in extremely unlikely things.
@meaningfulscience1 Inspiration doesn't mean justification. People are inspired by the ocean, trees and mountains...it doesn't mean they have any connection with or knowledge of what it is to be an ocean, a tree or a rock. I can't say I've read those to answer your question.
@meaningfulscience1 umm lets see, stories told by other men of a religious figure? With added in tales of magic powers? Frankly the teeming uneducated and illiterate masses have trouble following leaders that are human, so they ascribe to him supernatural powers, in order to add to his mystique. Jesus himself never penned a single word. Why, likely because he, assuming he lived at all, was illiterate as most commoners were. Every other major religion has teachings penned by its founder.
I never said Christianity is the only religion. But I do think it is the most consistent with the evidence we have. There's nothing wrong with making a claim like that. Isn't that the goal? to believe what makes the most sense? And atheism is a philosophy, it makes a truth claim about reality, "God doesn't exist." And if you don't think the brain is the fastest machine in the universe, then you aren't basing you belief on evidence. No computer scientist or otherwise would disagree.
Christianity is blatantly wrong on some points. Genesis has been shown to be quite wrong. There was no moses. The closest religion to reality would likely be Buddhism, Daoism, or some Yogic ideas. But even those are quite sketchy.
As for the brain being the fastest computer, not so sure. It is conscious but that's it. Who knows, there may be more intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe.
Another thing, science was bound by religion for a while until science declared independence. Why is it that you can describe almost all of nature current activity without even mentioning a god??, because you can, it works and it makes sense. Granted, there are still holes, and some people fill them with divinity. But those holes keep getting smaller and smaller and in the future god its not going to look that powerful after all if he just has to fill those little holes.
The fact is that nature is a design. Why do genes create proteins? They were designed to do that. You can't explain science without a design. In fact, all of science presupposes design.
I hope you can see why Christians love science. We love to explore the design of God in nature. In fact, Christianity was the birth canal of modern science due to this belief.
Its still not a fact. And yes, i think religion originated from a need to explain the way the world works, and obviously that gave way to science. But, as i said, i think science by itself has been moving along pretty well without the necessity of a god. There are still some dark areas in a number of subjects, but, the way things are moving, i think what ultimately is going to be left without explaining, would fit the Deism god better, which means god just started it all and then went away.
Science moves along because of God. Science presupposes design. Without design there would be no science.
Everyone is religious. You either believe that an eternal God created and designed the universe or you believe that Nature created and designed the universe.
All atheist are really Theists who simply replace the word God with Nature in order to avoid the moral implications even though the idea of Nature creating itself is a contradiction.
It feels like you really put thought into it. But i still would disagree with some details. Even if a god cant be left completely out of the picture, we are left with a debate about which god and what is its nature. This is the biggest problem i have with theists, they havent come up with a decent creation theory that actually is derived from scientific observation, and UP TO DATE EVIDENCE and not based on ancient writings. If thats the case, ALL ancient texts should be taken into consideration.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and then confirms it by raising from the dead. The resurrection is not merely a claim; rather, it was empirically verified by multiple witnesses using all five senses in many different venues.
No other religion makes a claim of this nature and also then provides empirically verified evidence for its claims.
Ok, but, that alone doesn't have any repercussions on the actual state of the natural world. In fact, Jesus had nothing to do with the creation of the world. The resurrection itself has no meaning for science today even if it where proven as a fact. Even following your logic, it has no meaning as a cosmological event. And if it where proven to not be true, the way we see the natural world wouldn't change at all, science would still work. So, logically, it has no weight.
Science is a description of how reality works. The mind of God is part of that reality so science will always remain incomplete.
In addition, science is more than a painting. The painting tells us a story.
The fact that the universe is dying implies that the universe was wound up for a reason. What is that reason?
If you fail to recognize the purpose of science and simply study the color of the paints used, you will miss the bigger picture of what the picture itself is saying.
As I'm listening to this, especially toward the end, I realized something.
Ever hear a salesman address you in a condescending, 'I-know-what's-best-for-you' voice? That's what these people always remind me of.
And they call themselves humble if you can believe that!
Dazzle me with more of your humility! Tell me more about how you know the mind of the all powerful creator of the universe because it says so in a book you found! The arrogance...
Actually, the resurrection was empirically confirmed my many witnesses in several different context. On top of that John records that he used the five senses to confirm that it was the risen Christ. On top of that, a historian by the name of Luke wrote an account after investigating the claims. The evidence is overwhelming.
These are stories - fiction! The four books (Matthew, Luke, Mark and John) can't agree with the specifics.
For example, in Matthew when Jesus died there was an earthquake and the dead rose from their graves and walked around! No mention of this in the other three books, maybe it only happened in the part of town Matthew was in? Or maybe these are all fiction, written decades after the fact, and probably not even by the witnesses themselves.
And life coming from non-life? All your doing is replacing our lack of a natural explanation with a supernatural one because that's EXACTLY what you're saying god did. He made us from mud with a spoken word (magic).
Actually, you are claiming that Nature created itself and designed itself. This is an contradictory claim. Something cannot create itself.
In order to avoid the contradiction, you have to posit the existence of God.
In fact, the Bible predicted the universe had a beginning, that planets were created first, then light, then the squence of the animals was demonstrated in the Bible and confirmed in the Genome.
The Bible has a ton of evidence. You don't have any evidence, just dogma.
My beliefs are not dogmatic, they're based on the evidence. The evidence points to a big bang (we don't know how that happened), and a natural series of events that ended with us. Matter cannot create itself, that's true. But it can change states.
There's nothing dogmatic about my belief because if new evidence was discovered that contradicted this, I would change my belief to correspond with the new evidence.
And after the council of Nicaea, how can you think any of it can be trusted?
I won't accept anecdotal 'evidence', that's not reliable because people lie. We humans do it well and easily. Sometimes we don't even know we're doing it.
There's a lot about quantum physics for example that defies logic. No one's saying matter created itself. What science says, and is actually comfortable with saying, is that we don't know yet. The evidence points towards a singularity.
But that's why we have science - we want to know.
You stated, the evidence points towards a singularity which began to exist and then claim ignorance..
We have Creation which we now know had a beginning as predicted by the Bible, you have life on the planet as predicted by the Genesis. You have complex brain which is more complex than anything known to man and you have the resurrection of Christ.
It is really a no brainer. Beliefs are based on evidence and ignorance is not a belief. In order to be rational, you have to be a Christian.
The council of Nicea has nothing to do with the eyewitness accounts or their corroboration.
Yes, we know there was a beginning and then you state without evidence that matter can change states. So, we have billions galaxies from something that had a beginning and then state matter transformed itself without evidence of a transformation.
You are clearly dogmatic!
The Bible has predicted that the universe had a beginning and now we know the Bible is true!
"you state without evidence that matter can change states."
Go pour some water into a dish, set it outside and watch as it changes states.
You keep going back to me being dogmatic. I've demonstrated I'm not. I'm willing to say I don't know about something when there's a lack of evidence. Current evidence points towards (this is important) but isn't PROOF that the universe started with a bang. Maybe you should look up the definition of dogmatic, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Matter changed status so you believe that visible matter had a beginning and that this invisible reality is the cause of visible reality. It sounds like you are now becoming a Theist! I knew you would come around.
you are well spoken which leads me to think ur a intelligent person, but ur deluded. im not saying ur dumb cause ur christian, but there is no way you could say ur holy book is infallible. if the holy book is open to interpretation then it is undoubtedly fallible. you dont read the bible the same way others do, so there is no one truth coming from this holy book. i dont believe everything i hear out of science but science is meant to be interpreted in order to better the overall knowledge.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are records of the events. In addition, we have other documents of their followers who followed later who confirmed the message of the witnesses. The evidence is overwhelming! You have to discredit the witnesses and the contempories; however, this cannot be done because their is no evidence that can discredit them.
You also cannot assume naturalism to prove naturalism as both science and the universe are open.
Again, these guys did not exist, nor did they have any part in writing the NT. And even if they did, they were not eyewitnessess, and even if they were, they were clearly insane, and even if they weren't, there's nothing to support their ramblings.
The Creation is a miracle. We literally exist on a cloud of atoms floating on a mass revolving around a nuclear reactor. Your life and your future are on the line my friend.
The universe is a miracle as well as the fact that you can communicate.
Even the Big Bang argues that the source of creation is an infinite source. An infinite source is God since only God is infinite.
Is it really rational to believe all the matter in the universe came from a point smaller than an atom? No
And miracles don't exist. Stop this madness already.
You don't know the first thing about Big Bang, you arrogant twat... Nevermind that it's the same thing that disproves biblical god... Yeah, no care for the truth, if something supports your delusions it's okay, if not, to hell with it, right?
You advise that I lose even though I have evidence. You think you have won even though you haven't given me any evidence.
I guess Atheist are just extremely dogmatic as a result.
The real issue is your soul. You don't know the love of God and this is your greatest need. Your language and lack of civility is proof that you need the love of God in your life.
You have evidence. Right. Where is it again, I must have missed it in the middle of you throwing a fit due to not having any.
Your issue is that you're insane, you hate yourself, your beliefs, you have clinical delusion, mass cognitive dissonance, and possibly retardation. Get a check-up.
I have loved talking with you and greatly enjoyed the discussion. In all my discussions, they always end with a person calling me names after failing to give any evidence for their views.
Like I said, I sat in your seat once intellectually; however, the evidence is overwhelming and you can deny it all you like; however, it is there for the honest person who is searching for truth.
Please, don't call this mess a discussion. You've done nothing but throw poop at the walls so far, me standing in the corner with metaphorical shield...
I don't know how you manage it though, still. It's like you know *exactly* what's going on and then turn the tables at the other guy. It's like some sort of kindergarten nonsense gone horribly wrong.
There is no evidence. And if there is, you've done a poor job at pretending it's there. Get a sense of humility, would ya.
You should know, you just tried it. I gather it's been infuriating, wasn't it? Don't try it again, please.
You need to shut the fuck up. God told me so, and you can't prove me otherwise, so that means I have evidence which you can't ignore or you're a goddamn bitch. Sweet.
I would recommend being careful about your anger. A Christian acts on love; however, anger can lead to violence.
You need the love of God in your life so that you can begin to enjoy the life of God. God is love and those who know God can restore their relationship with Him.
If I were you, I would start with the gospel of John. John's record may touch your life as it has changed a lot of peoples lives. In fact, I have been changed.
God is love and those who reject love are living in selfishness. If you are not part of the eternal life of God which is love, then you will spend eternity without love. This is what wrath is...God won't force you to love him, he only accepts those who come to Him in faith.
Go to hell. That's where God send people whom he loves best, does he not? I mean, it's not like he's forcing you to love a murderer and a monster under threat of hellfire, no. It's "love". Or whatever your twisted soul means by that.
I appreciate the discussion as always; however, God won't force you to love Him! You are correct that God does not believe in rape. God is waiting for you to respond to His love.
My only point is to demonstrate that your life is based on dogmatic premises. Christians have overwhelming evidence as well as the message of love to carry to the world.
The only thing you appear to offer is anger, rage, hate and dogmatism.
It doesn't have to be that way!! God has opened the door for you.
Yeah, but he'll send you to hell if you don't. Not forcing though.
All you've illustrated so far is that you have to be absolutely insane to pretend there's any evidence for whatever crap you believe in, and that you're morally bankrupt.
I like how you continue to assert your point after offering nothing to support it and being verbally raped at every point. It's almost as admirable as little kid refusing to use the latrine.
Well, no, it's not clever or admirable, it's insane and pathetic. Get that check up.
And please don't come near me in the future. Goodbye.
If you at least had some evidence, I could at least consider your argument. You simply have failed to provide any evidence that can discredit the witnesses or demonstrate that life came from non-life.
I feel sorry for you because your whole life is based on dogmatism...
Very funny, since my only argument has been asking you for evidence of your lunacy, and you don't have any. You're only embarassing yourself, you know.
zdennyfamily ur definition of evidence is too broad. how should one define something as myth or fact in ur world. if a were to write a book similar to the bible today in this day and and someone were to find its 100 years latter, it would not make the book i wore historical fact, it would just be words on a piece of paper.
You have to look at the records themselves. We have multiple records from multiple eyewitnesses in various contexts. This evidence would be accepted in any court of law.
No, you do not. And if you do, please alert the academic world to your new discovery, right after citing them here unlike you refuse to do so far.
Again, Bible is verified fiction, written as such long after time it's supposedly happened by people who couldn't see any of it, unsupported by absolutely any shred of evidence. Do you not understand that, or do you honestly delude yourself into thinking the disciples actually wrote it like it says? Really?
You 5,000 are merely people who think evolution is true. I haven't even touch that subject... Most of those 5,000 you mention believe that God does exist.
No... 5,000 are the number of people named "Steve" who have signed the petition. Pay attention. The number of people who accept evolution is about 99,98% of all scientists. Funny thing is, a lot of them are Christians. (the aforementioned 3%).
Are you serious. You think the resurrection of Christ is a historical fact. The one source that says he rose again was written decades after his death. The witnesses you speak of are only known through the same gospel source. That my friend is not historical fact, thats religion. By your reasoning all the characters of every religious book were real existing people and thus all other religions are equally true. which i bet u dont think all religions are equal. I cant deny Christ existence.
what would dawkins say to this? he would punk you for merely stating your beliefs and using quotes from others in an attempt to back up ur beliefs. science and religion are not incompatible, but anyone who truly looks at religion scientifically would become an atheist. if ur using ur religious beliefs as the foundation of ur scientific research, you add a bias to ur research and will only find information that supports ur cause. science should be approached with a humble clear mind.
The fact is that the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable that Christ rose from the dead.
I agree that bias is the problem with science because if they honestly considered the evidence, it would prove that Jesus is the Savior. This is a empirically confirmed fact.
Atheist have to deny the scientific method in order to avoid becoming Christians.
Christ claimed to be the Son of God. He stated a hypothesis that as the Son of God he would rise from the dead. Christ prediction was fulfilled when he rose from the dead.
The resurrection was confirmed by multiple witnesses in multiple contexts.
The scientific method proves that Christianity is true.
It is time to stop playing ignorance and accept the scientific method.
Do you have any evidence that Jesus is a mythical figure? Do you have any evidence that the historical account is inaccurate?
I really believe you have accepted dogma rather than accepting the scientific method. The method has confirmed the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
If you really are scientific, then you are forced rationally to become a Christian.
Well, pretty much all of history ever, plus zero evidence *for* the myths. To any sane person, the first clue should really be the fact that the books describe magic...
You're repeating yourself. Repeating something doesn't make it true. It just makes you look crazy.
Your disregard for the Bible is based on dogma then. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the resurrection of Christ and follows the scientific method.
If I were you, I would spend more time investigating the claims of the Bible. This is how most atheist come to Christ.
Very funny, but do you have anything non-crazy to say on the matter? You'd be doing your fellow Christians a disservice if you continue, they're not all crazy people, you know... Deluded maybe, but only a few nuts go so far as to actually claim Bible is true or supported by anything...
Incidentally, so far you sound like a complete antipod of all reason, in that the opposite of every single thing you said so far is true. Pretty sure that's the definition of irony, too.
I actually find you to be extremely closed minded unwilling to consider evidence. The evidence is overwhelming for the resurrection.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. As the Son of God he predicted that He would rise from the dead. The hypothesis was confirmed when in fact Christ rose from the dead.
The resurrection was witnesssed by multiple people in many different contexts. Independent third parties are investigated the claims.
Christianity is the largest religion on the face of the planet because it is based on evidence that has been empirically verified.
The only crazy person is a person who does not accept the evidence which overwhelming demonstrate the reality of the Creator.
We have no evidence that life came from non-life; however, we have overwhelming evidence that Christ rose from the dead. The claims of Christ were empirically verified by many witnesses!
The only dogmatic person is the atheist who has no evidence that life came from non-life. They then go the next step and stick their heads in the sand in order to ignore the overwhelming evidence for the resurrection.
Atheist don't care about science...they use it inconsistently as a security blanket. However, to deny the resurrection, you also have to deny science itself.
3:39, no no no no... what are you talking about... those things are all totally separate. respect where it is due, but you really are just making things up now
the whole 'atheism vs Christianity as a basis for science' argument... atheism means belief in no god... i am so sick of people such as yourself claiming it is anything more than that i have started calling my self a non-theist, just for the sake of simplicity. just having watched the video quickly again, the foundations point is not valid. you are denying that secular beliefs may include those which hold nature to have self evident truth, for example, or that faith in a god changes nature...
So... What about other religions besides your christianity? Just as silly as atheism? Or what? Only one can be "right" after all. And also, atheism is not a religion. Sorry.
I am saying that the Christian worldview is the best foundation for modern science. Many historians, secular and religious, agree with that statement. Are you an atheist?
Atheism is a religion. It is the worship of nature since it considers nature to be ultimate.
There really is no difference between a person who prays to sticks and an atheist who considers the material reality of the sticks to be ultimate.
The fact is that if atheist were really interested in empirical evidence, they the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact that they would all acknowledge.
Atheism is not concerned about science. It is merely dogma.
Without a Theistic definition, the term 'gods' is a vacous term having no meaning. As such, the definition is invalid.
The fact is that atheist consider matter ultimate and after death they cease to exist. This is what Hindu's believe. It is the same belief system. Hindu's simply add reincaration which Atheist would reject.
As such, you really believe a modified version of Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism even allows atheist to remain atheist in Hinduism because they are the same.
Actually, Stalin was a good atheist I suppose. The only people killing all the time are atheist. In America, the liberals have killed 60 million babies.
When you have a society built on selfishness like atheism, great harm takes place. A society built on love avoids harming ones neighbor.
Christianity is built on the love of God that is found in Christ Jesus our Lord.
A society built on love and sacrifice makes a society great and the justification for love is Christianity.
Hitler strongly believed in the evolution which provided his justification for extermination. Hitler used religion; however, he was not a Christian.
The fact is that evolution was the foundation for Hitler thought. The love of God that is found in Christ Jesus was the furtherest thing from his mind.
I don't know how I can express myself more clearly.
This is not a debate, this isn't even a debate about God or Christianity, if you wish to continue to claim what you just did - Bible being supported by science, your craziness about atheism, whatever - you are placed in the category of complete insanity by association.
And, believe me, my conclusion is shared by majority of Christians out there as well. Again, they may be deluded or brainwashed, but not outright schizophrenic.
Ad Hominem attacks is all that Dawkins does too. I think it is a sign of insecurity since you don't want to deal with the evidence.
If you accept the Scientific method, then you are forced to accept the resurrection of Christ. If you don't accept the scientific method, then you certainly are not a supported of scientific inquiry.
I don't know how to talk with you. You make things up on the spot, ignore the opposition and never bother to back anything up. Well, that's all religious types are capable of when defending their religion anyway, but it's usually more subtle...
Would it help you if I informed you that you lose the discussion by default by refusing to acknowledge the opposition?
Seriously, do you think lowering yourself to Ad Hominem attacks does anything for anyone! Dawkins is famous for avoiding evidence and using unproven assumptions. In fact, Dawkins won't even debate anymore because he doesn't want to be exposed. It might hurt his book sales.
You have more hypocricy on you than the entire Bush administration, good friend. Tell me when you actually have the guts to defend you beliefs with anything other than lies you refuse to back up and petty insults.
Until then, thank you for illustrating my point quite masterfully. What was it again?... Oh yeah...
"If you apply scientific method to your religion, you'll always end up an atheist."
You're an example from the contrary. excellent one at that. Cheers.
The opposite is true. The scientific method confirms the resurrection of Christ. You end up a Christian. Christians provided the foundation for scientific enterprise and that is why it flourishes in the Western Hemisphere.
You don't have to day your welcome because I know how closed minded you are to the evidence.
I think we've discussed this already - there is zero historical evidence for any single part of the NT, less of all Jesus parts, less of all his magic tricks, less of all his resurrection. Of course science also tells us that there were no recorded supernatural occurrences in our history, but hey, don't let reality stop you... Right?
I swear, if you project any harder you'll be bought out by Microsoft. Dogmatism, lol.
The historical evidence is overwhelming with the witness account of John and Peter and third party accounts of Mark and Luke.
Science has already confirmed the miracle of Creation and the Creator could certainly raise Christ from the dead for which we have lots of witnesses.
The fact is that you don't accept the historical documents. I guess you can deny gravity too or believe in pink unicons; however, at some point you have to be honest with the evidence.
Very interesting. Can you cite one contemporary source? (Oh, and all the gospels were written decades after supposed death of Christ, not one of them by the author it claims to have.)
Science has done everything to disprove your stupid creation myth, get a grip.
Sigh... You see, the reason people tell you you might as well ignore gravity when you announce your belief in creationism is because it's a scientific *theory*, like evolution. See how stupid you make yourself look?..
I don't get. This type of "you too" nonsense comeback is supposed to die off after at least primary school. I'll continue to assume you have serious mental issues...
Ad Hominem again. This comes from not accepting the evidence for the ressurrection. You have no reason to love your neighbor as yourself. I understand why you lack love in your love.
Don't try to use the big words when you don't know what they mean. There is no evidence resurrection, and the only one spewing personal attacks in place of arguments (note the correct use) is you.
Are you done being juvenile yet? Although that's a bit much to ask from someone with imaginary friends...
The internal evidence of the records claims that they were eyewitnesses. You have would to provide real tangible evidence that this were not the case.
I have read just about everything the liberals have written and they never have any evidence. They only have liver quivers. I mean do you have any evidence that can discredit the witnesses? I don't know of any tangible evidence.
Internal evidence? Are you just making words up now? Okay, I'll break it to you: what Bible says isn't worth jack shit. It's a bronze-age myth that goes against every shred of reason, knowledge, logic and even itself.
There are no witnesses of the Bible. No evidence of any part of it being true. That's the whole point. We have radiometric dating, cosmology, geological data, common sense of course, and history - and not one time do any of them say anything but it being false on every regard.
Do you have any evidence or do you just continue making unsuported claims? Your statements are purely dogmatic beliefs.
Creation was a miracle in the way that Jesus did miracles. The processes of nature were sped up. Millions of years took place in one earth day due to an act of the Creator.
Once again, I need your evidence which you are lacking at this point. The resurrection was empirically confirmed and so you need to provide evidence that this was not the case. That is how science works if you are famaliar with science.
All you've done so far is repeat your presuppositions over and over and refer to books of the OT which are proven fiction. Are you arguing with yourself now? I can go away if you want...
Believe me, reason is not what you delude yourself to think it is. It stars with being honest to yourself and critically examining evidence, and you have neither. Would it kill you to acknowledge your mistakes? Is your ego worth it?
I really can't deduce if you're completely void of logic or are you seriously deluded into thinking that Jesus just happens to be the only solar deity to be backed up by anything. Would it help if I referred you to a book dealing with matter?
I probably already have read it. I was like you intellectually at one point. I told a person he couldn't rationally defend the resurrection. I found I was dead wrong.
Christianity has power evidence and intellectual support. I had blindly believed that the skeptics had a point.
Your in the same boat so i would encourage you to be open minded.
So uh... You got hit on the head or something?.. That sucks...
Then again, you're probably just lying. Do you honestly think lies are so hard to spot?
You were never open minded. You were never a skeptic. I doubt you ever have not believed in your silly god. You expose nothing but lack of interest in debate, choosing instead to defend your beliefs with conjured lies, on the spot.
This is clinical delusion, and it is no joke. Not even the religious kind, where people just believe stupid shit.
I said that I was intellectually skeptical only; however, faith provides certainty. I knew by faith that Christianity was true; however, I read all the skeptics thinking they had a point. I discovered that they didn't. In all honesty, the skeptics appeared to be grasping at straws rather consistently with tons of liver quivers that contradicted each other.
Science only deals with probabilities; however, faith makes Christianity certain. A person has to make decisions that are consistent with the evidence rationally.
The evidence points to a Creator. We have no evidence of life coming from non-life; however, we do have evidence of the Son of God who had power over nature who rose from the dead.
We also have evidence that the Creation had a beginning. The beginning was an infinite source.
I'm not sure how you manage it, every single thing you say, only the opposite of it is true. I guess should have suspected that you have to fold reality inside out to believe in something like what you do...
There is no evidence for creation. There is no evidence for any part of the Bible. There is no evidence of any gods*. There is evidence for abiogenesis. Get an education.
*THIS is why you call it faith, which is a belief without any basis, or one contradicting reality.
Abiogenesis has only resulted in two amino acids. Even if you had them all, you still have to put them together in a chain to form protein. You don't have any evidence. You only have a dogmatic belief.
That's amazing. When presented with reproduction of organic compounds in environment representing it's point of origin, that's too little. But Bible saying it's true and presenting nothing else, that's all you need!
Why do you think Dawkins is looking for aliens? He even knows how impossible it is for life to have begun on earth. Dawkins will not even use abiogenesis as a proof since it appears to prove that life coming from non-life is impossible. You should do more research.
I just wish you accepted science. If you did, you would become a Christian.
God's love for you is real and that is why the universe is here. The universe was created so that you could have a relationship with him. Why do you think we can talk? God made us for relationship...It is the design...
I stopped believing in the imaginary when I grew up.
PhRiZoN 5 months ago
Just because we dont have an answer to every small little thing doesnt mean its the work of god.
Eksohcorg 6 months ago
This is great. Loving it! Thanks!
hibiscusfire 6 months ago
EPIC FAIL
gigisdad 1 year ago
i think he would say if you wer born in india you would be a hindu, of born mid east you would be muslim, if you wer born in viking days you would believein thor, the usual BS he answers with that avoids every question thrown at him, richard dalkins cant prove atheism, i say to you richard dalkings if you wer born in a house full of athiest you will believe in atheism, poor mr dalkins i will pray for him
thasnaps 1 year ago
@thasnaps good and so true.
hibiscusfire 6 months ago
author is just moron and he things, that others are morons as well.
Kibernautas 1 year ago
Great video.
bammagamma 1 year ago
if god created universe why cant we live on other planets , and why is god only letting us live on earth , why not mars , saturn , uranus , jupiter why is it so difficult to travel to mars , that only a NASA pathfinder can go .... seriously
3x6ganesh 1 year ago
Jesus was a Buddhist.
navonob 2 years ago
There was a certain man, his name was stupid, and he is you.
mutabrev 2 years ago
your trying hard to make god exist but he doesn't. We have very good evidence evolution i true and the bible is wrong. Like Dawkins will say, Why do you believe in jesus and not muhammad in the muslim faith? All i can say is it is all in your mind and religion is a trick, u are just falling for the trick. As a "normal" person, i wish there is a god...But sadly however much i want to believe it, It is extremely unlikely. I dont believe in extremely unlikely things.
roggy12345 2 years ago
Science is in principle atheistic, because it never supposes a supernatural being. Doing so will stop research in that particular problem.
rockbottom87 2 years ago
The Bible was created by man, not god. I think anything man made has nothing to do with God.
spudw2k 2 years ago 5
The Bible is inspired by God. Have you ever read the account of Jesus' life in the Gospels? What do you think of those in particular?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
@meaningfulscience1 Inspiration doesn't mean justification. People are inspired by the ocean, trees and mountains...it doesn't mean they have any connection with or knowledge of what it is to be an ocean, a tree or a rock. I can't say I've read those to answer your question.
spudw2k 2 years ago
@meaningfulscience1 umm lets see, stories told by other men of a religious figure? With added in tales of magic powers? Frankly the teeming uneducated and illiterate masses have trouble following leaders that are human, so they ascribe to him supernatural powers, in order to add to his mystique. Jesus himself never penned a single word. Why, likely because he, assuming he lived at all, was illiterate as most commoners were. Every other major religion has teachings penned by its founder.
howlingwolf8 6 months ago
I hate one sided arguments, and people who assert god when questions get tough.
Elififa 2 years ago
Let's have a two-sided discussion. What tough questions do you have? Why don't you personally believe in Jesus Christ?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
I Don't believe in god/jesus for the same reason you and I don't believe in fairies.
Elififa 2 years ago
Did somebody say that atheism = science?
gdmaverick 2 years ago
Yeah, Dawkins. Have you ever read any of his books? So, are you an atheist?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
I have. I am. And I'm pretty sure he never said that. Please provide a source if possible.
gdmaverick 2 years ago
Comment removed
gdmaverick 2 years ago
@meaningfulscience1 Atheism = Rejection of God claims because of lack of evidence. Don't try to be smarter than Dawkins. You won't succeed.
PullMyFinger123456 1 year ago
Wow. Christians like to assume that theirs is the only religion. Or that their's is the most thoughtful religion.
Atheism isn't some philosophy. It is simply a disbelief in these deities.
Brain is the fastest machine in the universe?? Talk about faith!
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
I never said Christianity is the only religion. But I do think it is the most consistent with the evidence we have. There's nothing wrong with making a claim like that. Isn't that the goal? to believe what makes the most sense? And atheism is a philosophy, it makes a truth claim about reality, "God doesn't exist." And if you don't think the brain is the fastest machine in the universe, then you aren't basing you belief on evidence. No computer scientist or otherwise would disagree.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Christianity is blatantly wrong on some points. Genesis has been shown to be quite wrong. There was no moses. The closest religion to reality would likely be Buddhism, Daoism, or some Yogic ideas. But even those are quite sketchy.
As for the brain being the fastest computer, not so sure. It is conscious but that's it. Who knows, there may be more intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago 4
Another thing, science was bound by religion for a while until science declared independence. Why is it that you can describe almost all of nature current activity without even mentioning a god??, because you can, it works and it makes sense. Granted, there are still holes, and some people fill them with divinity. But those holes keep getting smaller and smaller and in the future god its not going to look that powerful after all if he just has to fill those little holes.
Diabolojr 2 years ago
The fact is that nature is a design. Why do genes create proteins? They were designed to do that. You can't explain science without a design. In fact, all of science presupposes design.
I hope you can see why Christians love science. We love to explore the design of God in nature. In fact, Christianity was the birth canal of modern science due to this belief.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Its still not a fact. And yes, i think religion originated from a need to explain the way the world works, and obviously that gave way to science. But, as i said, i think science by itself has been moving along pretty well without the necessity of a god. There are still some dark areas in a number of subjects, but, the way things are moving, i think what ultimately is going to be left without explaining, would fit the Deism god better, which means god just started it all and then went away.
Diabolojr 2 years ago
Science moves along because of God. Science presupposes design. Without design there would be no science.
Everyone is religious. You either believe that an eternal God created and designed the universe or you believe that Nature created and designed the universe.
All atheist are really Theists who simply replace the word God with Nature in order to avoid the moral implications even though the idea of Nature creating itself is a contradiction.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
It feels like you really put thought into it. But i still would disagree with some details. Even if a god cant be left completely out of the picture, we are left with a debate about which god and what is its nature. This is the biggest problem i have with theists, they havent come up with a decent creation theory that actually is derived from scientific observation, and UP TO DATE EVIDENCE and not based on ancient writings. If thats the case, ALL ancient texts should be taken into consideration.
Diabolojr 2 years ago
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and then confirms it by raising from the dead. The resurrection is not merely a claim; rather, it was empirically verified by multiple witnesses using all five senses in many different venues.
No other religion makes a claim of this nature and also then provides empirically verified evidence for its claims.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Ok, but, that alone doesn't have any repercussions on the actual state of the natural world. In fact, Jesus had nothing to do with the creation of the world. The resurrection itself has no meaning for science today even if it where proven as a fact. Even following your logic, it has no meaning as a cosmological event. And if it where proven to not be true, the way we see the natural world wouldn't change at all, science would still work. So, logically, it has no weight.
Diabolojr 2 years ago
Science is a description of how reality works. The mind of God is part of that reality so science will always remain incomplete.
In addition, science is more than a painting. The painting tells us a story.
The fact that the universe is dying implies that the universe was wound up for a reason. What is that reason?
If you fail to recognize the purpose of science and simply study the color of the paints used, you will miss the bigger picture of what the picture itself is saying.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
As I'm listening to this, especially toward the end, I realized something.
Ever hear a salesman address you in a condescending, 'I-know-what's-best-for-you' voice? That's what these people always remind me of.
And they call themselves humble if you can believe that!
Dazzle me with more of your humility! Tell me more about how you know the mind of the all powerful creator of the universe because it says so in a book you found! The arrogance...
NomadicReprobate 2 years ago
Actually, the resurrection was empirically confirmed my many witnesses in several different context. On top of that John records that he used the five senses to confirm that it was the risen Christ. On top of that, a historian by the name of Luke wrote an account after investigating the claims. The evidence is overwhelming.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
And all that "evidence" would all go to the drain if only one of those "historians" had consumed mushrooms or smoked weed.
Diabolojr 2 years ago
We have more evidence for the Bible than we do that life came from non-life or that the Creation created and designed itself.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
These are stories - fiction! The four books (Matthew, Luke, Mark and John) can't agree with the specifics.
For example, in Matthew when Jesus died there was an earthquake and the dead rose from their graves and walked around! No mention of this in the other three books, maybe it only happened in the part of town Matthew was in? Or maybe these are all fiction, written decades after the fact, and probably not even by the witnesses themselves.
NomadicReprobate 2 years ago
75% of New Testament scholars agree that the gospels are historical records. The writers are not involved in mythology.
They were all written within the lifetime of the witnesses.
Your objection is an argument from silence. Since the others don't mention, does not imply that it did not happen.
You need evidence that they were fiction or written decades after the fact.
You make a lot of dogmatic statements for certain while believing dogmatically the life came from non-life.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
And life coming from non-life? All your doing is replacing our lack of a natural explanation with a supernatural one because that's EXACTLY what you're saying god did. He made us from mud with a spoken word (magic).
NomadicReprobate 2 years ago
Actually, you are claiming that Nature created itself and designed itself. This is an contradictory claim. Something cannot create itself.
In order to avoid the contradiction, you have to posit the existence of God.
In fact, the Bible predicted the universe had a beginning, that planets were created first, then light, then the squence of the animals was demonstrated in the Bible and confirmed in the Genome.
The Bible has a ton of evidence. You don't have any evidence, just dogma.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
some biblical evidence please?
uberownagemonkey 2 years ago
My beliefs are not dogmatic, they're based on the evidence. The evidence points to a big bang (we don't know how that happened), and a natural series of events that ended with us. Matter cannot create itself, that's true. But it can change states.
There's nothing dogmatic about my belief because if new evidence was discovered that contradicted this, I would change my belief to correspond with the new evidence.
And after the council of Nicaea, how can you think any of it can be trusted?
NomadicReprobate 2 years ago
Matter created itself is a logical contradiction. Matter would have to exist prior to its existence.
If you are ready to change your beliefs based on evidence, then you will become a Christian.
The fact is that the evidence for the resurrection is overwhelming. All of the New Testament was written while the eyewitnesses were still alive.
We have more evidence for Christianity than your beliefs.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Please point me towards the evidence.
I won't accept anecdotal 'evidence', that's not reliable because people lie. We humans do it well and easily. Sometimes we don't even know we're doing it.
There's a lot about quantum physics for example that defies logic. No one's saying matter created itself. What science says, and is actually comfortable with saying, is that we don't know yet. The evidence points towards a singularity.
But that's why we have science - we want to know.
NomadicReprobate 2 years ago
You stated, the evidence points towards a singularity which began to exist and then claim ignorance..
We have Creation which we now know had a beginning as predicted by the Bible, you have life on the planet as predicted by the Genesis. You have complex brain which is more complex than anything known to man and you have the resurrection of Christ.
It is really a no brainer. Beliefs are based on evidence and ignorance is not a belief. In order to be rational, you have to be a Christian.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
it true your kids got taken away?
uberownagemonkey 2 years ago
The council of Nicea has nothing to do with the eyewitness accounts or their corroboration.
Yes, we know there was a beginning and then you state without evidence that matter can change states. So, we have billions galaxies from something that had a beginning and then state matter transformed itself without evidence of a transformation.
You are clearly dogmatic!
The Bible has predicted that the universe had a beginning and now we know the Bible is true!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"you state without evidence that matter can change states."
Go pour some water into a dish, set it outside and watch as it changes states.
You keep going back to me being dogmatic. I've demonstrated I'm not. I'm willing to say I don't know about something when there's a lack of evidence. Current evidence points towards (this is important) but isn't PROOF that the universe started with a bang. Maybe you should look up the definition of dogmatic, I don't think it means what you think it means.
NomadicReprobate 2 years ago
Matter changed status so you believe that visible matter had a beginning and that this invisible reality is the cause of visible reality. It sounds like you are now becoming a Theist! I knew you would come around.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
My discussion with Melon I hope is instructive for all those who are seeking truth.
As you scroll back through the argument you will see that Mellon had nothing to offer the world except Ad Hominem attackes.
The choice is really clear for all those who are honestly seeking the truth.
At this point, Melon is struggling since he realizes his atheism is based on dogmatism.
We can only pray that Melon one day wakes up to the truth and find the loving God who designed Him out of love.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
you are well spoken which leads me to think ur a intelligent person, but ur deluded. im not saying ur dumb cause ur christian, but there is no way you could say ur holy book is infallible. if the holy book is open to interpretation then it is undoubtedly fallible. you dont read the bible the same way others do, so there is no one truth coming from this holy book. i dont believe everything i hear out of science but science is meant to be interpreted in order to better the overall knowledge.
vividDrive 2 years ago
A record is different than a piece of poetry.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are records of the events. In addition, we have other documents of their followers who followed later who confirmed the message of the witnesses. The evidence is overwhelming! You have to discredit the witnesses and the contempories; however, this cannot be done because their is no evidence that can discredit them.
You also cannot assume naturalism to prove naturalism as both science and the universe are open.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Heh. It's funny because OT is written in rhyme.
Again, these guys did not exist, nor did they have any part in writing the NT. And even if they did, they were not eyewitnessess, and even if they were, they were clearly insane, and even if they weren't, there's nothing to support their ramblings.
Game over man, game over!
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The Creation is a miracle. We literally exist on a cloud of atoms floating on a mass revolving around a nuclear reactor. Your life and your future are on the line my friend.
The universe is a miracle as well as the fact that you can communicate.
Even the Big Bang argues that the source of creation is an infinite source. An infinite source is God since only God is infinite.
Is it really rational to believe all the matter in the universe came from a point smaller than an atom? No
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
And miracles don't exist. Stop this madness already.
You don't know the first thing about Big Bang, you arrogant twat... Nevermind that it's the same thing that disproves biblical god... Yeah, no care for the truth, if something supports your delusions it's okay, if not, to hell with it, right?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The Big Bang proves the existence of God. It argues that an infinite source resulted in the Creation.
We have no evidence of infinity existing in reality; however, we do have evidence of the resurrection who demonstrated his power over all of nature.
Are you now beginning to see how dogmatic you are... Is your mind starting to crack open just a little....
When I had to confront the evidence, I had to agree with history rather than those who simply are dogmatic like atheist.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Very funny. No it doesn't, you moron.
Okay, that's enough. If you're just going to parrot your line without any attempts to defend yourself, you lose by default. Enjoy.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
You advise that I lose even though I have evidence. You think you have won even though you haven't given me any evidence.
I guess Atheist are just extremely dogmatic as a result.
The real issue is your soul. You don't know the love of God and this is your greatest need. Your language and lack of civility is proof that you need the love of God in your life.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
You have evidence. Right. Where is it again, I must have missed it in the middle of you throwing a fit due to not having any.
Your issue is that you're insane, you hate yourself, your beliefs, you have clinical delusion, mass cognitive dissonance, and possibly retardation. Get a check-up.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I have loved talking with you and greatly enjoyed the discussion. In all my discussions, they always end with a person calling me names after failing to give any evidence for their views.
Like I said, I sat in your seat once intellectually; however, the evidence is overwhelming and you can deny it all you like; however, it is there for the honest person who is searching for truth.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Please, don't call this mess a discussion. You've done nothing but throw poop at the walls so far, me standing in the corner with metaphorical shield...
I don't know how you manage it though, still. It's like you know *exactly* what's going on and then turn the tables at the other guy. It's like some sort of kindergarten nonsense gone horribly wrong.
There is no evidence. And if there is, you've done a poor job at pretending it's there. Get a sense of humility, would ya.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I have loved the discussion. I know it is hard to argue for something when you don't have any evidence.
Christianity is both rational and reasonable. The evidence supports its claim.
God love you so much that he created a universe for you and then gave you a will that could choose to love him.
Your relationship with God has been broken. You need to restore that relationship.
Jesus Christ made it possible for your to be saved from the corruption we see.
Believe.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
You should know, you just tried it. I gather it's been infuriating, wasn't it? Don't try it again, please.
You need to shut the fuck up. God told me so, and you can't prove me otherwise, so that means I have evidence which you can't ignore or you're a goddamn bitch. Sweet.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I would recommend being careful about your anger. A Christian acts on love; however, anger can lead to violence.
You need the love of God in your life so that you can begin to enjoy the life of God. God is love and those who know God can restore their relationship with Him.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
LOL, yes, you're such a loving bunch of joy, aren't you?
Apparently Christianity also lead to retardation then... Since you're such a good example of it...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
If I were you, I would start with the gospel of John. John's record may touch your life as it has changed a lot of peoples lives. In fact, I have been changed.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." - John 3:36
Truly a book of love and understanding. Yeah, whatever. Go away already.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
God is love and those who reject love are living in selfishness. If you are not part of the eternal life of God which is love, then you will spend eternity without love. This is what wrath is...God won't force you to love him, he only accepts those who come to Him in faith.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Go to hell. That's where God send people whom he loves best, does he not? I mean, it's not like he's forcing you to love a murderer and a monster under threat of hellfire, no. It's "love". Or whatever your twisted soul means by that.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
It is God's will that none should perish but that all should come to repentance.
Hell is your choice...not God's. He has given you the path and all you need to do is enter the life of love. This is what you were created for.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
It's not a fucking choice if it's hell, you moron. It's bullying. Can't you go die already?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
God is love and when you reject love what do you have. If your rational you can figure it out. Hell is the result of rejecting love.
It is pretty simple. I can tell for certain you don't know love by the way you are treating me. You are not even trying to hide it.
You need the love of God in your life my friend. You really do!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Again, go to hell. After all, that's how much god loves you and the rest of people he's sending there.
Also, fuck you, you sick piece of shit. What you're describing is not love, it's fucking rape. I hope you enjoy your time in hell, will you not?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I appreciate the discussion as always; however, God won't force you to love Him! You are correct that God does not believe in rape. God is waiting for you to respond to His love.
My only point is to demonstrate that your life is based on dogmatic premises. Christians have overwhelming evidence as well as the message of love to carry to the world.
The only thing you appear to offer is anger, rage, hate and dogmatism.
It doesn't have to be that way!! God has opened the door for you.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Yeah, but he'll send you to hell if you don't. Not forcing though.
All you've illustrated so far is that you have to be absolutely insane to pretend there's any evidence for whatever crap you believe in, and that you're morally bankrupt.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
My discussion with Melon I hope is instructive for all those who are seeking truth.
As you scroll back through the agument, Mellon had nothing to offer to the world including evidence.
The choice is really clear for all those who are honestly seeking the truth.
At this point, Melon is not being honest.
Melon may one day wake up to the truth and find the love of God which he was designed for.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Yes, scroll back if you want some entertainment. And if you ever thought about arguing with nuts like this guy here.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I like how you continue to assert your point after offering nothing to support it and being verbally raped at every point. It's almost as admirable as little kid refusing to use the latrine.
Well, no, it's not clever or admirable, it's insane and pathetic. Get that check up.
And please don't come near me in the future. Goodbye.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
When a dark cloud is overhead, a rational person could conclude that it will rain.
However, you have to see that the dark cloud over your head is death. Death is the result of the corruption of the universe.
You can escape the corruption by accepting the path of salvation made possible by Jesus Christ.
He love you and is calling out to you today. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Seriously, I wouldn't delay that check-up if I were you. You'll thank me for it.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
If you at least had some evidence, I could at least consider your argument. You simply have failed to provide any evidence that can discredit the witnesses or demonstrate that life came from non-life.
I feel sorry for you because your whole life is based on dogmatism...
It doesn't have to be though....
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Very funny, since my only argument has been asking you for evidence of your lunacy, and you don't have any. You're only embarassing yourself, you know.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
zdennyfamily ur definition of evidence is too broad. how should one define something as myth or fact in ur world. if a were to write a book similar to the bible today in this day and and someone were to find its 100 years latter, it would not make the book i wore historical fact, it would just be words on a piece of paper.
vividDrive 2 years ago
You have to look at the records themselves. We have multiple records from multiple eyewitnesses in various contexts. This evidence would be accepted in any court of law.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
No, you do not. And if you do, please alert the academic world to your new discovery, right after citing them here unlike you refuse to do so far.
Again, Bible is verified fiction, written as such long after time it's supposedly happened by people who couldn't see any of it, unsupported by absolutely any shred of evidence. Do you not understand that, or do you honestly delude yourself into thinking the disciples actually wrote it like it says? Really?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The academic world? What world would that be? I know tons of academics who are Christians.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
THE academy, that'll be. Scientists, or Science should I say. Not personal opinion, but research.
The reason there are tons of Christians in academy is that they constitute about 3% of it, and there are lots of scientists out there. LOTS.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The head of the Genome Project is a Christian. I think your numbers are fuzzy. I personally know over 500 professors just myself.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I guess you have to be insane to see how this is relevant to anything.
I know 5,000 people by the name "Steve" who have signed a petition specifically supporting modern synthesis. Like I said, a lot of people.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
You 5,000 are merely people who think evolution is true. I haven't even touch that subject... Most of those 5,000 you mention believe that God does exist.
God Bless,
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
No... 5,000 are the number of people named "Steve" who have signed the petition. Pay attention. The number of people who accept evolution is about 99,98% of all scientists. Funny thing is, a lot of them are Christians. (the aforementioned 3%).
Please. Get spayed.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
does not prove he is god.
vividDrive 2 years ago 4
Are you serious. You think the resurrection of Christ is a historical fact. The one source that says he rose again was written decades after his death. The witnesses you speak of are only known through the same gospel source. That my friend is not historical fact, thats religion. By your reasoning all the characters of every religious book were real existing people and thus all other religions are equally true. which i bet u dont think all religions are equal. I cant deny Christ existence.
vividDrive 2 years ago 4
what would dawkins say to this? he would punk you for merely stating your beliefs and using quotes from others in an attempt to back up ur beliefs. science and religion are not incompatible, but anyone who truly looks at religion scientifically would become an atheist. if ur using ur religious beliefs as the foundation of ur scientific research, you add a bias to ur research and will only find information that supports ur cause. science should be approached with a humble clear mind.
vividDrive 2 years ago 3
The fact is that the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable that Christ rose from the dead.
I agree that bias is the problem with science because if they honestly considered the evidence, it would prove that Jesus is the Savior. This is a empirically confirmed fact.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Science does not concern belief, it has absolutely nothing to do with either theism or atheism.
The only parallel to be had here is that if you apply scientific method to your religious beliefs, you'll end up an atheist 100% of the time.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Atheist have to deny the scientific method in order to avoid becoming Christians.
Christ claimed to be the Son of God. He stated a hypothesis that as the Son of God he would rise from the dead. Christ prediction was fulfilled when he rose from the dead.
The resurrection was confirmed by multiple witnesses in multiple contexts.
The scientific method proves that Christianity is true.
It is time to stop playing ignorance and accept the scientific method.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
That's hilarious. But you can't just take arguments rightfully directed at you and then expect this to make sense.
Also, Jesus is still a mythical figure. And even if we assume he was real, he didn't rise from the dead. You bloody loon...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence that Jesus is a mythical figure? Do you have any evidence that the historical account is inaccurate?
I really believe you have accepted dogma rather than accepting the scientific method. The method has confirmed the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
If you really are scientific, then you are forced rationally to become a Christian.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Well, pretty much all of history ever, plus zero evidence *for* the myths. To any sane person, the first clue should really be the fact that the books describe magic...
You're repeating yourself. Repeating something doesn't make it true. It just makes you look crazy.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Your disregard for the Bible is based on dogma then. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the resurrection of Christ and follows the scientific method.
If I were you, I would spend more time investigating the claims of the Bible. This is how most atheist come to Christ.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Very funny, but do you have anything non-crazy to say on the matter? You'd be doing your fellow Christians a disservice if you continue, they're not all crazy people, you know... Deluded maybe, but only a few nuts go so far as to actually claim Bible is true or supported by anything...
Incidentally, so far you sound like a complete antipod of all reason, in that the opposite of every single thing you said so far is true. Pretty sure that's the definition of irony, too.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I actually find you to be extremely closed minded unwilling to consider evidence. The evidence is overwhelming for the resurrection.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. As the Son of God he predicted that He would rise from the dead. The hypothesis was confirmed when in fact Christ rose from the dead.
The resurrection was witnesssed by multiple people in many different contexts. Independent third parties are investigated the claims.
I would urge you to stop being dogmatic
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Well, if you actually had any, I'd be happy to consider. But all you're doing so far is being crazy and stupid.
You should look up the definition of insanity and compare it to your ramblings, by the way, you'll be amazed...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Christianity is the largest religion on the face of the planet because it is based on evidence that has been empirically verified.
The only crazy person is a person who does not accept the evidence which overwhelming demonstrate the reality of the Creator.
We have no evidence that life came from non-life; however, we have overwhelming evidence that Christ rose from the dead. The claims of Christ were empirically verified by many witnesses!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
The only dogmatic person is the atheist who has no evidence that life came from non-life. They then go the next step and stick their heads in the sand in order to ignore the overwhelming evidence for the resurrection.
Atheist don't care about science...they use it inconsistently as a security blanket. However, to deny the resurrection, you also have to deny science itself.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
3:39, no no no no... what are you talking about... those things are all totally separate. respect where it is due, but you really are just making things up now
thehasslessydney 2 years ago
Can you explain in a little more detail? I really want to understand where you're coming from on this.
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
the whole 'atheism vs Christianity as a basis for science' argument... atheism means belief in no god... i am so sick of people such as yourself claiming it is anything more than that i have started calling my self a non-theist, just for the sake of simplicity. just having watched the video quickly again, the foundations point is not valid. you are denying that secular beliefs may include those which hold nature to have self evident truth, for example, or that faith in a god changes nature...
thehasslessydney 2 years ago
So... What about other religions besides your christianity? Just as silly as atheism? Or what? Only one can be "right" after all. And also, atheism is not a religion. Sorry.
Resistance8 2 years ago
I am saying that the Christian worldview is the best foundation for modern science. Many historians, secular and religious, agree with that statement. Are you an atheist?
meaningfulscience1 2 years ago
Atheism is a religion. It is the worship of nature since it considers nature to be ultimate.
There really is no difference between a person who prays to sticks and an atheist who considers the material reality of the sticks to be ultimate.
The fact is that if atheist were really interested in empirical evidence, they the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact that they would all acknowledge.
Atheism is not concerned about science. It is merely dogma.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Atheism is religion like bald is hair color. Don't project, it only makes it more hilarious when you say you know religion is wrong.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Atheism is the belief that matter is ultimate. It is the same belief held by people that pray to sticks.
Atheism is really an anti-intellectual movement that accepts unproven assumptions and resorts to dogma every time it is challenged.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Atheism is the non-belief in any gods. Funny how you have to redefine language itself to support your fickle arguments and beliefs, no?
"Atheism is really an anti-intellectual movement that accepts unproven assumptions and resorts to dogma every time it is challenged."
On second thought, you might have definitions of atheism and religion mixed up. You sure you're not an atheist?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Without a Theistic definition, the term 'gods' is a vacous term having no meaning. As such, the definition is invalid.
The fact is that atheist consider matter ultimate and after death they cease to exist. This is what Hindu's believe. It is the same belief system. Hindu's simply add reincaration which Atheist would reject.
As such, you really believe a modified version of Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism even allows atheist to remain atheist in Hinduism because they are the same.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Wow, okay. Have you ever heard of the thing called "mental asylum"? I think they need you there.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Actually, Stalin was a good atheist I suppose. The only people killing all the time are atheist. In America, the liberals have killed 60 million babies.
When you have a society built on selfishness like atheism, great harm takes place. A society built on love avoids harming ones neighbor.
Christianity is built on the love of God that is found in Christ Jesus our Lord.
A society built on love and sacrifice makes a society great and the justification for love is Christianity.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Yeah, and Hitler was a good Christian. Both had mustaches, by the way, so that means mustaches are evil. Clearly.
With a small mind like that, no wonder you believe in a god. Simple minds need simple explanations...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Hitler strongly believed in the evolution which provided his justification for extermination. Hitler used religion; however, he was not a Christian.
The fact is that evolution was the foundation for Hitler thought. The love of God that is found in Christ Jesus was the furtherest thing from his mind.
Just do a little research!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I don't know how I can express myself more clearly.
This is not a debate, this isn't even a debate about God or Christianity, if you wish to continue to claim what you just did - Bible being supported by science, your craziness about atheism, whatever - you are placed in the category of complete insanity by association.
And, believe me, my conclusion is shared by majority of Christians out there as well. Again, they may be deluded or brainwashed, but not outright schizophrenic.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Ad Hominem attacks is all that Dawkins does too. I think it is a sign of insecurity since you don't want to deal with the evidence.
If you accept the Scientific method, then you are forced to accept the resurrection of Christ. If you don't accept the scientific method, then you certainly are not a supported of scientific inquiry.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I don't know how to talk with you. You make things up on the spot, ignore the opposition and never bother to back anything up. Well, that's all religious types are capable of when defending their religion anyway, but it's usually more subtle...
Would it help you if I informed you that you lose the discussion by default by refusing to acknowledge the opposition?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
(Oh, and failing to back yourself up. And being a brainwashed moron.)
Seriously, consider my advise about psychiatric help. Or at least vasectomy.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Hey my friend. You have given no evidence at all in order to back up your view or support your claims. This is the definition of dogmatic.
The fact is that the resurrection has been empirically verified and you just don't know how to deal with this.
I can tell you. Instead of being a dogmatist, you should accept the overwhelming evidence which has been empirically verified.
In addition, you should accept the infinite source which created and gave life to the universe.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Seriously, do you think lowering yourself to Ad Hominem attacks does anything for anyone! Dawkins is famous for avoiding evidence and using unproven assumptions. In fact, Dawkins won't even debate anymore because he doesn't want to be exposed. It might hurt his book sales.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
You have more hypocricy on you than the entire Bush administration, good friend. Tell me when you actually have the guts to defend you beliefs with anything other than lies you refuse to back up and petty insults.
Until then, thank you for illustrating my point quite masterfully. What was it again?... Oh yeah...
"If you apply scientific method to your religion, you'll always end up an atheist."
You're an example from the contrary. excellent one at that. Cheers.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The opposite is true. The scientific method confirms the resurrection of Christ. You end up a Christian. Christians provided the foundation for scientific enterprise and that is why it flourishes in the Western Hemisphere.
You don't have to day your welcome because I know how closed minded you are to the evidence.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Christians have and will always love exploring the design of the Creation. Christians can at least justify science as an valid enterprise;
However, atheism has to assume design in order to do science. That is where the contradiction lies for the atheist.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Out of pure interest, could you possibly be any more stupid?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I think we've discussed this already - there is zero historical evidence for any single part of the NT, less of all Jesus parts, less of all his magic tricks, less of all his resurrection. Of course science also tells us that there were no recorded supernatural occurrences in our history, but hey, don't let reality stop you... Right?
I swear, if you project any harder you'll be bought out by Microsoft. Dogmatism, lol.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The historical evidence is overwhelming with the witness account of John and Peter and third party accounts of Mark and Luke.
Science has already confirmed the miracle of Creation and the Creator could certainly raise Christ from the dead for which we have lots of witnesses.
The fact is that you don't accept the historical documents. I guess you can deny gravity too or believe in pink unicons; however, at some point you have to be honest with the evidence.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Very interesting. Can you cite one contemporary source? (Oh, and all the gospels were written decades after supposed death of Christ, not one of them by the author it claims to have.)
Science has done everything to disprove your stupid creation myth, get a grip.
Sigh... You see, the reason people tell you you might as well ignore gravity when you announce your belief in creationism is because it's a scientific *theory*, like evolution. See how stupid you make yourself look?..
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I don't get. This type of "you too" nonsense comeback is supposed to die off after at least primary school. I'll continue to assume you have serious mental issues...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Ad Hominem again. This comes from not accepting the evidence for the ressurrection. You have no reason to love your neighbor as yourself. I understand why you lack love in your love.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Don't try to use the big words when you don't know what they mean. There is no evidence resurrection, and the only one spewing personal attacks in place of arguments (note the correct use) is you.
Are you done being juvenile yet? Although that's a bit much to ask from someone with imaginary friends...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I do agree that your evidence is imaginary at this point. I am still waiting!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Okay, you are pretty funny. You're almost arguing with yourself. "Where's your evidence"... Indeed...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
The internal evidence of the records claims that they were eyewitnesses. You have would to provide real tangible evidence that this were not the case.
I have read just about everything the liberals have written and they never have any evidence. They only have liver quivers. I mean do you have any evidence that can discredit the witnesses? I don't know of any tangible evidence.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Internal evidence? Are you just making words up now? Okay, I'll break it to you: what Bible says isn't worth jack shit. It's a bronze-age myth that goes against every shred of reason, knowledge, logic and even itself.
There are no witnesses of the Bible. No evidence of any part of it being true. That's the whole point. We have radiometric dating, cosmology, geological data, common sense of course, and history - and not one time do any of them say anything but it being false on every regard.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
(THIS is why it's called "faith", btw.)
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence or do you just continue making unsuported claims? Your statements are purely dogmatic beliefs.
Creation was a miracle in the way that Jesus did miracles. The processes of nature were sped up. Millions of years took place in one earth day due to an act of the Creator.
Time is relative to the Creator.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
"Do you have any evidence or do you just continue making unsuported claims?"
No, that's what you do. I ask for evidence or shut the fuck up.
"Creation was a miracle in the way that Jesus did miracles."
Like this for example. Hypocrite.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Once again, I need your evidence which you are lacking at this point. The resurrection was empirically confirmed and so you need to provide evidence that this was not the case. That is how science works if you are famaliar with science.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
Once again, you first. You've so far ignored everything else I had to say, so let's hear your side of the story.
Back yourself up, or shut the fuck up.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I already have several times; however, you have offered nothing to counter the claims that were made and empirically verified.
This is what makes Atheist so dogmatic. They have to deny the scientific method while claiming to do science. It is the inherent contradiction.
Welcome to the land of reason. Reason is the path to Christianity. Faith is the key that opens the door.
At least you know why so many become Christians. The evidence is overwhelming!
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
All you've done so far is repeat your presuppositions over and over and refer to books of the OT which are proven fiction. Are you arguing with yourself now? I can go away if you want...
Believe me, reason is not what you delude yourself to think it is. It stars with being honest to yourself and critically examining evidence, and you have neither. Would it kill you to acknowledge your mistakes? Is your ego worth it?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I really can't deduce if you're completely void of logic or are you seriously deluded into thinking that Jesus just happens to be the only solar deity to be backed up by anything. Would it help if I referred you to a book dealing with matter?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I probably already have read it. I was like you intellectually at one point. I told a person he couldn't rationally defend the resurrection. I found I was dead wrong.
Christianity has power evidence and intellectual support. I had blindly believed that the skeptics had a point.
Your in the same boat so i would encourage you to be open minded.
God Bless,
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
So uh... You got hit on the head or something?.. That sucks...
Then again, you're probably just lying. Do you honestly think lies are so hard to spot?
You were never open minded. You were never a skeptic. I doubt you ever have not believed in your silly god. You expose nothing but lack of interest in debate, choosing instead to defend your beliefs with conjured lies, on the spot.
This is clinical delusion, and it is no joke. Not even the religious kind, where people just believe stupid shit.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I said that I was intellectually skeptical only; however, faith provides certainty. I knew by faith that Christianity was true; however, I read all the skeptics thinking they had a point. I discovered that they didn't. In all honesty, the skeptics appeared to be grasping at straws rather consistently with tons of liver quivers that contradicted each other.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
And then you stopped being skeptical and started being insane. Marvelous.
You sure are terribly inconsistent. First you claim you've got everything backed up and now suddenly it's a matter of faith?
Make up your mind. You're a terrible liar.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Science only deals with probabilities; however, faith makes Christianity certain. A person has to make decisions that are consistent with the evidence rationally.
The evidence points to a Creator. We have no evidence of life coming from non-life; however, we do have evidence of the Son of God who had power over nature who rose from the dead.
We also have evidence that the Creation had a beginning. The beginning was an infinite source.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I'm not sure how you manage it, every single thing you say, only the opposite of it is true. I guess should have suspected that you have to fold reality inside out to believe in something like what you do...
There is no evidence for creation. There is no evidence for any part of the Bible. There is no evidence of any gods*. There is evidence for abiogenesis. Get an education.
*THIS is why you call it faith, which is a belief without any basis, or one contradicting reality.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Abiogenesis has only resulted in two amino acids. Even if you had them all, you still have to put them together in a chain to form protein. You don't have any evidence. You only have a dogmatic belief.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
That's amazing. When presented with reproduction of organic compounds in environment representing it's point of origin, that's too little. But Bible saying it's true and presenting nothing else, that's all you need!
Hypocrisy at it's finest. Bravo!
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Why do you think Dawkins is looking for aliens? He even knows how impossible it is for life to have begun on earth. Dawkins will not even use abiogenesis as a proof since it appears to prove that life coming from non-life is impossible. You should do more research.
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I feel like I'm conversing with a spambot. You seem to have attention span and memory of common housefly... What the fuck?..
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I just wish you accepted science. If you did, you would become a Christian.
God's love for you is real and that is why the universe is here. The universe was created so that you could have a relationship with him. Why do you think we can talk? God made us for relationship...It is the design...
zdennyfamily 2 years ago
I wish you were less insane. I'm not sure why I'm talking with you anymore.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
God is speaking to your heart that is why...You know it is true...
zdennyfamily 2 years ago