i think its kinda funny how we got kicked out of the garden of edan for eating a fruit that gave us knowledge of good and evil. written in the bible. genesis. then. the church. every religion really. teaches use good and evil. pagans didnt teach good or evil. just spirits. of everything. water trees etc. god is omnipotent omniscious and omnipresent. could be coincidence. maybe not. religion is just population control. face it. ppl who believe are just fools sorry
I was under the influence that the bottom line question that Atheists ask people whom follow are a religion was "is there a god or not?" , Unless im seeing this wrong but its starting to look like that the lines of Atheism only contradicts itself with Christianity, unless of-course the person contradicting, is widely familiar with all religions around the world. Why are Atheists seem to be ganging up particularly on Christianity alone.
If McGrath keeps holding his head like that, he's gonna get some severe spine condition. Meh... who am I to judge. He's probably just helping the blood flow to the right side of his brain.
@minerax "matter or energy do not spontaneously generate"
so far our understanding says it doesnt, but just because you dont understand something doesnt mean you fill in the blanks with something else.
ex: a crime scene. youre working to solve it out, but you dont know who the suspect is or what the murder weapon was. you dont just "fill it in" with something; you work harder to find the answer.
wow just because someone is a christian wouldnt mean that they dont believe in evolution. religion is something that inspires you to get through life, im a christian and honestly im not that religious and religion has had 0 effect on my life. i probably know more about science than most atheists. i dont understand why they have to link my religion to this bullshit. frankly i dont give a fuck how we were created or whether or not there is heaven, i just want to earn good money and live happily
@superman1113215 You're quite obviously not a christian other than culturally. I mean do you go to church? if not, you are not a christian. Do you believe christ is the saviour of mankind, the son of a god?, could cure blindness, make the lame walk, walk on water, survive his own death, etc? if not you are not a christian. Have you ever read the new testament? if not, you cannot call yourself a christian because that would mean you dont even know what it is you say you believe in.
@superman1113215 So you say you're not that religious, and that religion has had 0 effect on your life, yet you go to church EVERY sunday, and also you dont care whether there is a heaven or not, yet you go to church EVERY sunday, makes me wonder why? All you want is money( rich man, eye of needle) so you dont practice what jesus preached, yet you say you're a christian, interesting.
Religion - Gives us the answer of how we got here, how everything happened and why we're here, but has no proof to back it up.
Science - Has theories of how we got here but have no idea how everything happened (Like how evolution started, or how anything in that matter began to exist) and why we're here, but is ever so growing in vast amounts of evidence.
I'm agnostic. I'm agnostic because I don't know and I'm fine not knowing.
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
We as humans don't actually have the privilege of understanding why we are here. Not even a tiny bit. Religion tries to offer possible answers for that, and nobody can say it is truly wrong as nobody actually knows the answer. Another thing is he does that thing that atheists do which i cannot stand. He puts all religious peoples amount of faith on the same level, whereas actually people in the same religion believe different things about it. Religious people are just as questioning as atheists.
@distensible Religion doesn't offer answers, it tells you categorically why we are here and how we got here, and if you dont believe what it says you cant be a follower of that religion other than in a cultural sense. Religious have only started questioning how to interpret their holy texts relatively recently as scientific discoveries continue to show them all up for what they are. Poor, old, man made texts written for power and control over the populace. They are ignorant of the real universe.
@redjove2000 Okay then. You said christians are "ignorant of the real universe", i assumed you thought you knew what the 'real universe' was. I dont think religions force people to believe like some sort of cult. I think people find their own faith. And anyway, a lot of religious people don't believe in miracles or "unicorns" all religious people have varying levels of belief,. By the way im not religious at all. Try not to jump to conclusions before you call me a "giant gullible sap".
@distensible You dont believe religions force people to believe???!!! So children of all faiths that are dragged along to their respective holy houses and brainwashed from walking age onwards to believe what their parents believe isn't forced on them? Threatening them with hell fire if they don't? or in islam death to the apostate? How can you possibly make such a stupid statement?
@redjove2000 yup thats exactly what im saying, call me a hypocrite all you want, but wanting money isnt a sin, its a goal i set for myself. seriously, im just like any other person
@superman1113215 If you believe in all that religous, magical nonsense that Jesus Christ was said to be capble of, then you're a lunatic and I honestly hope you're not "just like any other person".
@distensible You may be able to question as much as atheists do as a Christian, or any other follower of some religion. However if you go against God you would either think that the sciencetific answer is incorrect and that what "God says" is the correct answer, or you would go with the sciencetific answer and not truly be religious. Most religious people that believe in evolution also believe that God created evolution...
Well to be fair, both science and religion can both be double edged swords. It just depends on who is wielding the sword. We could use science to research cures for diseases and explore space or we could use it for biological warfare or nuclear warheads. We see that religious groups like to give donations to charity, but we also see some bombing certain world trade centres and suppressing gay rights.
But I'm still agnostic and a Richard Dawkins supporter all the way :D
that guy had a well thought out, thought provoking response at the ready. Religious people would say "it's in the bible" and that's the end of the discussion.
@SShamit1 But there must have been somewhere that the universe came from. It must have an origin as it is linked to time. Matter or energy do not spontaneously generate.
@Minerax Actually funnily enough matter or energy can spontaneously come into existence according to the theory of quantum physics. In fact, as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Company in November, physicists at New South Wales University managed to create light out of nothing.
Don't go spouting factual claims when you know of no evidence to substantially support your point.
@Minerax "Matter or energy do not spontaneously generate." Not as far as we know at least. But why does that matter? Us not knowing something in no way validates some random assertion.
@SShamit1 Not necessarily, he doesn't need to exist of this realm to cause an event to happen. He is limitless and unbound. This is only speculation, but I think that He can also put Himself into our world, so to speak. He can cross over the line of time that He invented and cause an event to happen. But He still isn't chained by this world and time. He can change the world as he wills it. One thing, mentioned in the Psalms, is that God cannot be fathomed. No human has ever come anywhere
@Minerax If god cannot be fathomed, then why does Man believe that it knows anything about a supreme being or a divine creator? If there is some sort of higher being (which, barring superior intelligent lifeforms, there's not) why would humans have the audacity to think that they have any facts or knowledge about such a being? That's putting way too much importance on the human race, especially when you consider the vastness of the universe.
@therealestmc85 Also tell me what "obvious contradictions" you are talking about. I see none and have studied the bible through all of my remembered life. Another point is to throw your own argument right back at you: Where did the "Big Bang" come from?
@Minerax among the many scientific explanation one would be that the universe can exist in a singularity where the dimension of space-time are folded into planck's size(the smallest size possible) and the big bang would be the first event caused by a quantum fluctuation of that singularity. another explanation would be time is cyclic, thus infinite regression can occur and universe would continue to create and destroy itself over and over forever
Well God doesn't have an origin. The best example is that of a man writing a book. He can read part of it and re-read it again and alter it, then go back a few pages and alter another thing. All that hasn't happened in our time, but outside of any time. God is not of time and not limited by it. This is why God is omnipotent and omnipresent, he can alter time at any time.
@Minerax to alter time is to cause an ''event'' an event requires temporal existence, if god doesnt exist in a temporal state how can he cause an event, and if he exists in a temporal state how can he omnipresent, u have to explain how a no spatial-temporal existence is possible otherwise ur statement has no value
@thinkboutit Anything that you think is true you believe in, so atheism is a belief. I can believe anything I want but it is what I select to believe that is important. For instance, I believe that God made the universe and all that is in it. And like any artist, he has left his signature, so to speak. Look up laminin and see what I'm talking about. Also, there is a galaxy very far away where the same cross symbol can be seen. He left something that he knew would be significant to us in t
@Aeolus14 If it was religion that kept people in the jungles, then tell me why Christian scientists have made extreme advancements in the world. Also tell me how Christianity manipulates people.
@Minerax Did you watch the video? Christianity does it by encouraging people not question things; by not asking about the origin of God; by rationalizing the many obvious contractions in the bible; and by labeling people who think different the seeds of the serpent.
@Minerax "tell me why Christian scientists have made extreme advancements in the world" Hmmm... Do you realise that those advances only happened once we kicked the church out of our affairs? Do you realise that those advances grew exponentially once we went completely secular and thus freed ourselves from religion?
Do you realise that none of the "christian" scientists actually mention god or anything remotely like it in their papers? Where's the god-variable in E=mc²?
@dasschleg The first problem is the strawman of atheism they throughout the entire film.
They run the entire film under the premise that all atheists believe that there absolutely is not god, that morality is entirely subjective, and that the logical endpoint in atheism is the disbelief in freewill. These claims are not shared by all atheists and if Ben Stein had any integrity he would have pointed that out.
There are also a few other problems, like ad hoc attacks, red herrings, etc.
Lol religions are man manipulating cultures. It is those that asks questions that continues human intellectual evolution. If everyone were radically religious we would still be living in jungles.
Atheism is not a belief dumbass. Do you not believe in unicorns? Fairy's? Well by your logic that is a belief too. The list would be infinite. Doesn't really matter anyway. God is not real and you can't prove me otherwise.
By your logic the ppl voting non-guilty believe the person on trial to be innocent, while in fact they're merely unconvinced of guilt (which says nothing about whether they actually believe that person is innocent).
Am I getting through to you at all?, guess not.
"just skeptical, you still believe"
Ah, back to bastardizing the term "belief", cute, but wrong.
Now cut the crap with that "atheism is a belief" BS.
We're officially done, you've just wasted the last of my patience.
No, as that implies belief, and atheism is the lack there-of (the not guilty in the equation) and while some atheists do infact believe that there are no gods this is an entirely seperate belief.
It doesn't matter if you just don't believe claims of god's existence or actually believe that there are no gods, you're an atheist in both cases as atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF, not a belief on it's own.
@Seymour13 I never doubted your self-confidence, trust me. I was saying that it's strange that you keep acting as if you are so busy doing other things with your 'valuable' time when really you reply to messages of mine multiple times a day.
Yes, I'm combining two seperate statements. Two equivalent statements. The ability to reject a God does not change the fact that atheists BELIEVE (yes they do believe) that Gods do not exist.
Yes I can, after years of debates like this I make a point nowadays of NOT walking ppl through the obvious, especially when I've already provided the necessary material for ppl to figure it out for themselves.
Figure it out yourself or not at all, I already provided the needed material for you to educate yourself on the matter, I'm not gonna read it to you aswell.
@Seymour13@CK3890 Playing the referee here I have to give CK the win for not reverting to juvenile insults. That said, intellectual honesty requires an attitude of disbelief regarding a claim until evidence is put forth, one is not called upon to prove a negative. However, many theistic ideas are actually not objective claims, but subjective perspectives, and as such cannot be as easily refuted. In my experience atheists tend to be too hostile and uneducated to recognize this.
To call someone an idiot generally doesn't mean that person is an idiot across the board, it usually refers to a specific situation/topic (just as I can be an idiot from time to time, no-one escapes this) and I didn't state that as certainty, there's always the option of troll (if I were to assume that the dishonesty was intentional, which I don't).
And after years of dealing with that same misconception over and over my patience isn't what it used to be.
So I have no qualms anymore about telling someone when I don't have the patience left to talk to that person (about that topic, or in general).
As for the brick wall remark, I found it fitting since it felt like I was talking to a wall (no getting through to either, hence "level playing field").
But to call that an actual insult would be lowering the bar imho (I can understand it being recieved as such though).
@fezrockson I am trying to say that even though I recognize that you cannot prove that something cannot exist, it does not change the fact that both the claim "Gods exist" and the claim that "Gods do not exist" are equally lacking evidentiary support.
Its crystal clear that god or anything like this does not exist .However for the sake of some that may believe in santa,let's imagine for a while he exist.What evil god would that be that causes wars in their name and let evil reign on earth?Even if god existed i am not sure i would lke to worship a guy like that!
@AnAtheistMetalhead23 It is not at all crystal clear. I can't believe I'm even replying to a gnostic atheist but it's for the sake of people who read these comments. Evil does not reign on Earth. The balance of good and evil stays balanced. Evil people who have far too much control are doomed to fear death, and equally never fully enjoy life.
And for the record, there is as much evidence that Gods do not exist as there is evidence that they do: Absolutely none
Because unlike religious people atheists do not believe in murder based on any beliefs a person may have we believe that the years you have on the earth are the only ones you've got and that it is not fair or just to take them away from anyone. And for the sake of further conversation the bible is a book of lies.
Dawson is incorrect in his premise that "religion teaches people to stop questioning". The basic questions human have about their identity, purpose, et al, are welcomed and appreciated. Dawkins is also incorrect in his premise "that there is no evidence.' View "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by J. McDowell and "I Believe Because" by B. B. Baxter for all sorts of evidences. Mr. Dawkins may not have been exposed to the love of Christian people; a true evidence of changed lives.
[btw, when I say "I'm very comfortable with saying I hate religion" I am ofcourse not referring to religious people, but just the religion. just pointing this out 'cause this wouldn't be the first time someone misunderstands ;)]
(Slight edit: when I said "worse off than most" I was ofcourse speaking in a general sense, not counting things such as ppl living in famine or war. Figured I'd clarify just in case.)
Point #. If God doesn't exist then there is no meaning to life. Gaining knowledge would be pointless because It would be gone when you die.
Point #2. Of course Religion can be used in a negative way, but you can say the same thing about atheism. Joseph Stalin, a man that killed 3 to 60 million people, said that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. Dawkins pretends that Muslim extremists are on the same level as these tyrants.
Respond to this video... Point # 3. Once again, you can say the same thing about Atheists. Two Atheist parents would naturally want their children to be Atheists as well.
His entire argument is relatively weak. The British accent does make him sound smart tho ;)
Point 1 is null, the mere fact that we are here, able to experience joy and spend time with the people we love, is enough meaning.
People who need a god to have meaning in life worry me tbh...
Point 2 is null aswell, you confuse atheism (a mere lack of belief) with (an extreme form of) anti-theism (the idea that religion is inherently harmful).
Point 3 is null aswell, pounding a religion into a child's head isn't the same as raising a child absent religious infuence.
@Seymour13 Rebuttal. Point one- Say that to a person who's family was killed in front of them and they probably wont have the same response as you. Not everyone experiences the joy I'm guessing you have.People everywhere need and feel as if there is something after life. This want for life after death is evidence enough for me that it exists, just as hunger is evidence of food existing.
Point 2- Isn't Dawkin's dogmatic behavior make him equally against religion?
Tbh all it is evidence of is that alot of people are afraid of death and need a crutch when dealing with the loss of loved ones, and when dealing with life in general.
"Not everyone experiences the joy I'm guessing you have"
Nope, most ppl have.
And for the major part of my life I've actually been much worse off than most.
"Dawkin's dogmatic behavior"
Eh?
"difference in pounding religion into someones head and telling them what you believe"
@Seymour13 #1. I'd say that is true to an extent, but does that make it any less true? Food is a crutch for hunger but it doesn't make it any less real.
#2. I honestly don't think you've met enough people to hold that as truth.
#3. let me elaborate... Dawkin's shows as much hate for religion as any anti-theist. Behavior like this by any influential Gov. or group of Gov. leaders would eventually cause something similar to the Russian massacres.
A crutch is something you think you "need" to get through something, while not actually needing it.
On the other hand, we can't last without food.
2: Well, I do get around alot, also considering my own past (which is something I'd rather not discuss in detail) I'd think I have something to go on as far as that point is concerned.
But don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of such beliefs, reality can be very harsh.
@Seymour13 1: I misunderstood what you meant by crutch.( lol ). Let me go back to my original argument. I honestly believe that any person, religious or not, hopes with a passion that there is something after life. It might be on your deathbed before you realize this but none the less we all have this hope. This might be fueled by fear like you originally argued but without this belief or something similar to it you will be depressed. Do you honestly believe death is an absolute end? (cont.)
3. You have great points about Gov. under atheistic influence but I don't think that a Gov. should have the right to tell you what you should be able to tell your kids, personally. This issue doesn't really concern the main topic of the discussion so I'll stop it here.
"All we're trying to teach is honest skepticism." I would say that nearly everyone that attends my church is an honest skeptic. I can't say the same about all religious people (cont
Respond to this video...which is what I think causes most of the science/religion tension.
The question is 'does science disprove the existence of God'. The answer is no. The only reason science has a problem with religion is because of the presence of miracles in the Bible for example. Science says that if we cant find a natural cause for something, than it didn't happen. This is the same thing as a drunk that has dropped and lost his keys in the dark and refuses to look anywhere (cont.)
Respond to this video...except under a streetlight, because it would be hard to find it in the dark. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's not real.
I would also say that the order and beauty of the universe points to a divine creator.
(Thanks for talking with me about this. I'm a 16 year old newly found Christian that is trying to argue for God. I admit I'm not very good at it but I hope to get better.)
"Do you honestly believe death is an absolute end"
I think it is, but I can't say for sure, I've never seen reason to believe in an afterlife though.
I wouldn't even want to exist in a concious state for all eternity, eternity tends to get boring (it's forever), wether it's in 10.000 years or 100.000.000.000.000 years
"does science disprove the existence of God"
This is not the question tbh.
It's all about wether or not there's empirical evidence for the god claim.
@Seymour13 Completely wrong. That is not the question true, but theism is not a claim. It is a belief. Just like atheism. (A)gnosticists make claims because they are people. There is not empirical evidence for the claim of Gods just as there can NEVER BE empirical evidence for the claim that Gods do not exist.
Not sure which comment you responded to, but anyway.
- Theism ITSELF does make claims (whether individual theists make a truth-claim is another story, but alot do), the claim that there is a god, that this god created existence itself, etc.
- Atheism is N-O-T a belief, but a lack there-of, the refusal to accept theism's claim; the existence of a god.
It says nothing about what beliefs we do hold.
Unless ofcourse you want to bastardize the term belief as to include non-beliefs.
@Seymour13 1. Theism does not make any claims. People can make claims, through words or written language. Theism is just a belief system, like atheism.
2. There are only two choices. You either believe or you don't believe. Disbelieving in the existence of Gods is believing that Gods do not exist. The only way to LACK belief is to have never even heard of the concept of Gods. It is not bastardization, it is true. Atheists hold the belief that all Gods do not exist.
@Seymour13 God's existence needs to be proved only if God is rigidly defined as having certain properties. If God is defined to be the supreme entity that encompasses the universe then by definition God exists; only God's properties are unknown. There is nothing more or less intellectually honest about this perspective, it is merely a different frame of reference.
Then it needs to be proven that there is indeed a "supreme entity" that encompasses the universe, otherwise it's just a fancy way of referring to existence itself and the entire discussion on that matter becomes utterly pointless.
@Seymour13 You are correct in as much as God as I define him may be nothing more than 'a fancy way of referring to existence' (in fact the Hebrew name for God most often used in the Bible just means existence), but I disagree on your assertion that the discussion is pointless. We are dealing with philosophy, essentially the study of the intractable problems of life. The most important step in solving a problem is often choosing a frame of reference, despite the choice being a subjective one.
@Seymour13 Correct and correct. Skeptical mindset is the correct one. And once again, how can you be so sure that Gods do not exist at all when there is absolutely no evidence that ANYTHING doesn't exist?
You're missing the point. Both atheism and theism are not logical mindsets driven by evidentiary substance. They are beliefs. Neither makes a claim. Both stances are entire intellectually dishonest because there is an equal lack of evidence.
1 - Yes it does, theistic books like the bible state shit like god's existence as fact.
Agree to disagree as I'm obviously not getting through to you, and this kind of shit tends to give me a headache.
"how can you be so sure"
*sigh* Sure of what?, just because I don't believe the theistic claim doesn't mean I'm 100% sure on what is or isn't out there, it just means that I see no reason to believe that there is a god.
When presented with a claim you either believe or stick with the default position of disbelief, you trying to dress it up as another belief is BEYOND dishonest.
So excuse me for having no further patience left for you, this is where I bow out.
I smell either troll or idiot, and it doesn't matter which as neither are worth more of my time.
Please direct any further comments to the brick wall to your left, that might level the playing field for you.
@Seymour13 Once more, there is no claim. Theism and atheism do not claim anything. They believe things. Gnostics claim things through word of mouth and written word. If you would like to analyze gnostic claims, you must remember that there are two claims to consider: the claim that Gods exist and the claim that Gods do not exist
And once more, neither claim holds any weight. I thank you for bowing out. I do not like talking to those who cannot hold constructive arguments.
*sigh* Ok, last time I'm even trying; there IS a claim, the bible (amongst other religious books) for example states the existence of a god as F-A-C-T (and that's a fact).
Gnostic/Agnostic people are a seperate matter.
"I do not like talking to those who cannot hold constructive arguments"
Me neither, hence the bowing out (tbh I'm not sure why I'm even bothering now).
I have yet to see you put forth constructive (or even reasonable) argument for why atheism would be a belief.
@Seymour13 Once more. The Bible was written by PEOPLE. It was not written by air. An atheist like yourself should know this. The Bible is not theism. It is a theist book, in that in teaches people to BELIEVE in God, but it does not make claims itself. It never once states the existence of God as fact either, btw.
I am perfectly capable of holding constructive arguments. Read my message to fez and you'll see I wanted to help you. You keep putting out insults. Cont'd next comment
@Seymour13 The Bible is a book. It cannot claim anything. People have claimed things through it. But the Bible does not have Hadith. It is left up to interpretation.
Finally, you're right I have not made an argument for why atheism is a belief. That's because it's common knowledge and I showed that it is with simple words. You don't believe Gods exist is the same as You believe Gods don't exist. If you say this is false, you believe in at least 1 God. This would make you theist.
As for your little bit about both claims needing proof, I agree on that (but then again, I never disputed that).
The only problem I have with you is that you dishonestly try to dress a lack of belief up as just another belief system (something I don't take kindly to).
I'll say this again; watch?v=OV4CghlDoJo, 46:14 and onward explains (and dismantles) this misconception you're having very accurately.
@Seymour13 It isn't a misconception. Tell me how 'not believing Gods exist' or 'disbelieving in the existence of Gods' is NOT the same as 'believing Gods do not exist' or 'believing in the non-existence of Gods?'. Everytime I argue with an atheist it boils down to this and everytime they have no rational argument for how these claims are any different.
Usually they just give me a link to a video and say 'it is a lack of belief'. I'm giving you a chance to be constructive. Take it.
No shit, because that saves a shitload of time that would otherwise be spent on a senseless argument.
"Tell me how 'not believing Gods exist' or 'disbelieving in the existence of Gods' is NOT the same as 'believing Gods do not exist' or 'believing in the non-existence of Gods".
Case in point, this is answered at great length in the vid I linked.
Furthermore, it's up to you to show that they are the same, which you haven't on any level whatsoever.
@Seymour13 Haha so that's your final argument? Just the video? If the video explains it so well, just tell me. How are those claims not equivalent?
Futhermore it's up to me? WHAT? You're the one who keeps claiming 'it is a lack of belief'. Both of us are claiming opposite things. The burden of proof is upon anyone who makes a claim. We have both made claims. Anyways, I have shown you with a conditional sentence, it's inverse, how they are the same. You have shown nothing.
Anyway, "I don't believe in a god's existence" doesn't equate to "I believe no god exists", I have nothing to say about that which isn't stated in the video you obviously still haven't watched (and out of the 15+ minutes spent on that subject, it's already explained perfectly within the first 2).
"I'm giving you a chance"
Lol, now that's rich.
This last response was a courtesy btw, don't expect any more of that from my end as my intended last response was 2 responses ago.
@Seymour13 Now you're changing the argument. Atheism is not the rejection of 'A' God, it's the rejection of any and all Gods. If it wasn't, again, that means you accept at least one God and thus you are a theist.
The last response came just the ones before that because you know you have absolutely no counter argument. Try again. I'm giving you another rich chance.
If you have the time to wait for me to type a wall of text to explain it to you, and then have the time to read it, you've got the time to just watch a fucking vid that provides valid arguments and analogies which would take up more space than our entire conversation has taken up 'till now.
There's a difference between not wanting to make the effort (believe me, I WAS tempted. past tense), and realizing it would just be an uttery wasted effort (hence the link).
@Seymour13 Before I retort, I'd like to point out again that I am trying to have a constructive argument. Your need to show me the value of your time prevents this. Once more, why is it that if the video explains it so quickly that you cannot reiterate?
You cannot give me the 'I don't want to make the effort' when I get response after response. I am not trying to break your ego. I am trying to teach you that thinking in other perspectives can be constructive. You are not God.
@Seymour13 To further elaborate, I'm sure you are going to respond with quotes on weak atheism and strong atheism. These are misconceptions. Atheism itself is the belief that all Gods do not exist. There is no weak or strong athe'ism'. You can be a weak athe'ist', and simply be skeptical of all Gods (agnostic) or a strong athe'ist', and accept firmly that all Gods do not exist.
This goes back to our earlier discussion. People and abstract nouns are not the same thing.
One can't seperate the unobservable from the non-existent.
This enables one to make up any unfalsifiable claim (and this is why personal testimony never cuts it), my personal favorite is russel's teapot, no-one has ever been able to disprove it ;).
And the teapot is infinitely more likely than any concept of god I've ever heard.
Besides, that's just about a god's existence, then come the theistic claims that we know "his" will and such.
@Seymour13 Again, there are no theistic claims. Theists can make claims, but they would be gnostic people. Neither atheism nor theism makes a claim. They are but beliefs.
And yes you're right in why personal testimony does not cut it, but you cannot discount the fact that we humans are of very limited knowledge. It is possible that everything exists. You cannot assume anything in life, and that is why both gnostic atheists and gnostic theists do not have constructive arguments.
"Science says" that if we can't find a natural cause for a confirmed occurance, then we just don't know the cause (like the big bang, we know it happened, we don't know the all specifics about how it was triggered).
Only if that which is claimed has not been confirmed, and then no evidence is found, it is assumed to not exist UNTIL satisfactory evidence has been found, this is skepticism (null hypothesis).
The greater the claim, the greater the need for evidence.
[PS: ""I'm a 16 year old newly found Christian that is trying to argue for God""
I can dig up some vids from my fav's concerning these topics and send them to your PM box if you want me to, bound to give you much food for thought ;). It would take a while though as I've got over 2000 fav's to search though.
Either way, it's been a pleasure talking to you ^^.]
I'm very comfortable with saying I hate religion, nothing wrong with that, nor does anti-theism itself lead to "Russian massacres", power hungry people with a tyrannical mindset that see competition in religion's influence will lead to that.
All Anti-Theism would lead to is the prohibition of all forms of religious indoctrination concerning children, and religious institutions would only be available to those 18 years of age or above.
One side is selling something, the other side just isn't buying that's being sold, not selling something else.
All we're trying to teach is honest skepticism.
Claims require evidence, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence (and are in much greater demand for evidence compared to trivial claims).
Extra-ordinary claims presented absent empirical evidence shouldn't be accepted as true.
@Seymour13 which is what I think causes most of the science/religion tension.
The question is 'does science disprove the existence of God'. The answer is no. The only reason science has a problem with religion is because of the presence of miracles in the Bible for example. Science says that if we cant find a natural cause for something, than it didn't happen. This is the same thing as a drunk that has dropped and lost his keys in the dark and refuses to look anywhere (cont.
@Seymour13 except under a streetlight, because it would be hard to find it in the dark. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's not real.
I would also say that the order and beauty of the universe points to a divine creator.
(Thanks for talking with me about this. I'm a 16 year old newly found Christian that is trying to argue for God. I admit I'm not very good at it but I hope to get better.)
Respond to this video... Point 3- there's a difference in pounding religion into someones head and telling them what you believe. I think that Atheist parents and Christian/religious parents would have the same influence on their children.
And I was reffering directly to the problem of indoctrination, as that's "passing on their beliefs" as opposed to just talking about it.
The problem I see alot is that the parents (ofcourse believing that their religion is true, and believing that they have a duty to teach it to their child as truth) don't just say "this is what I believe" but instead make knowledge claims and try to teach it as fact.
@Seymour13 Very, very true. You're saying that it's unfair to teach something they believe is truth to their children as fact, but isn't it equally as unfair to say that a person shouldn't or shouldn't be able to teach them this?(badly worded sentence sorry) Wouldn't you be mad if you couldn't tell your kids that God doesn't exist? Think about perspective.
His argument that religion is dangerous because faith can be used to justify things like terrorism is very flawed. Rationalism untempered by faith in a moral code can be every bit as bad, and has in fact been responsible for the largest genocide in history. Vote this post up if you agree that a balanced world view requires faithful adherence to a code of morality as well as rationalism, and that neither one can substitute for the other.
@fezrockson The morality of the middle east religions is extremely dubious to say the least; you could even say it is incredibly distasteful (incest, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery etc.
Who says atheism cannot accomodate a balanced, rational view? Read, watch and listen to the arguments of genuine atheists , they sound pretty damn rational and balanced to me. You can't call them unbalanced simply because they just happen not to have an invisible friend in the sky.
@aussiesam01 Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible, the sacred text at the core of the middle eastern religions (I assume you are referring to the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and its offspring, not the myriad obscure cults that they have mostly supplanted) know that all of the things you listed above are forbidden. As an atheist guided by rationality alone on the other hand, there is no reason to rule any of them out. Why not improve the gene pool by wiping out a few 'lesser' races?
@fezrockson Nonsense! Thise things are not forbidden at all. They are positively demanded, including such niceties as killing all the women and children of a city and ripping the unborn children out of the wombs of their mothers. And just how do you support claim that anyone in history has commited any of the attrocities you list in the name of atheism or used atheism as the rationale for their murderous actions,
@aussiesam01 They are in fact forbidden; I studied for two decades at traditional Jewish schools that teach the ancient texts as they have been taught for thousands of years, you on the other hand are talking out of your ass. Furthermore, I made no claim about history (although there are many examples), I merely asked a theoretical question, one that should be easy to answer if you are a serious philosopher and an atheist: why shouldn't an atheist improve the gene pool through genocide?
@fezrockson it's all tosh no matter what version of the garbage you take. Personal morality is what guides most atheists to tell them that killing is wrong, We don't need a bible to tell us that. And here:
@aussiesam01 Tell me more about this 'Personal morality', is it based on logic? If so, please indicate the logical fallacy in improving the gene pool through genocide. If you cannot then you must concede. If 'Personal morality' is not logically derived then it confers no advantage to religion as it constitutes a religion in itself. Regarding the quotes above: you have taken these out of context and have no understanding of their implications or the oral tradition that accompanies the text.
@fezrockson Your question isn't serious, it's ridiculous and time wasting. Not to respond to your silly question is not to concede, I have more sense than to get into arguments with an idiot. "it's out of context" is the silly meaningless argument that many theologians spout when they've been caught out. It isn't a real argument.
If want information on personal morality there are plenty of books etc out there with which you can inform yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
@aussiesam01 By failing to defend against my argument you have in effect conceded. The response 'Your question isn't serious, etc.' is not a valid argument. Furthermore, you started this debate by responding to my post, so if I am an idiot then you aren't looking too much better. With regard to taking things out of context: the bible is a text that was compiled 2500 years ago, and written even earlier; a lot of interpretation is necessary, and often a good understanding of iron age reality.
@aussiesam01 Being as you have clearly not done the requisite research in this area you cannot presume to having a position of understanding. This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty that causes theologians not to take atheist bible commentary seriously. There are many well-developed conflicting perspectives, but taking some quotes off the internet at random (Kings 10:17? Really???) does not qualify.
@aussiesam01 However, if you still need a response that is satisfying to continue the argument then I submit to you the following: the quotes you posted were anecdotal accounts of IRON AGE warfare, not commandments or even suggestions as to how warfare should be conducted in the 21st century. While you may find history disturbing, it is not relevant as an attack on the code of law laid out in the same text.
@fezrockson I didn't need a response but thanks anyway. I think you need to go back and read your story book. Many of the passages given there are quite clearly commands from some invisible man in the sky. Stop apologising for your religion.
body language analysis see how other guy tilts his chin means he think he is better person then richard dawkins. richard dawkins has face level so isnt thinking liuke that
you atheists and people who lack faith...only listen to richard dawkins to reassure yourselves...why dont you ask yourselves WHY DO I NEED TO KEEP REASSURING MYSLEF? I would tell you why, but you already know....but you already know.
@FindingJesusverytrue "God's living, creativity, including himself" is your claim, based on nothing but a highly questionable "holy" book full of contradictions and endorsement of slavery, to name only one instance of immorality in the bible. Something like that, stated as unquestionable truth, is by definition dishonest. Stating anything as absolute truth without support by evidence is dishonest, be it the god of the bible, be it godzilla or santa claus. You pick it.
@FindingJesusverytrueyou'r a idiot if you think atheism is a religion, it has nothing to do with faith, it promotes what's true based on evidence and observation, which in turn makes you to think, question and helps you to open your eyes to the world around you, unlike your pathetic, narrow minded, delusional and immoral religion which asks to blindly follow an idiot (jesus) who may or may not have existed, all based on the most awful and disgusting book which was written for a medieval audience
i think its kinda funny how we got kicked out of the garden of edan for eating a fruit that gave us knowledge of good and evil. written in the bible. genesis. then. the church. every religion really. teaches use good and evil. pagans didnt teach good or evil. just spirits. of everything. water trees etc. god is omnipotent omniscious and omnipresent. could be coincidence. maybe not. religion is just population control. face it. ppl who believe are just fools sorry
MrAntmantis 2 days ago
no-one argues with a guy that looks somewhat like leroy jethro gibbs, or they get slapped in the head
brentonalla1 4 days ago
Some of us are afraid of death and the dark, thus, religion.
dkthg 4 days ago
I was under the influence that the bottom line question that Atheists ask people whom follow are a religion was "is there a god or not?" , Unless im seeing this wrong but its starting to look like that the lines of Atheism only contradicts itself with Christianity, unless of-course the person contradicting, is widely familiar with all religions around the world. Why are Atheists seem to be ganging up particularly on Christianity alone.
Hi2Kiwi 1 week ago
logic = science
retardism = religion
even without all the science and stuff...dawkins speaks the truth , it is so PLAIN to observe the truth he speaks...unlike ...what religion teaches
kingkonghitme 1 week ago
this guy asking the questions is so snooty its painfull
Areyourealythatdumb 1 week ago
McGrath had the priviledge of being born in a (so called) free country.... and the best thing he did was to join religion....
What a shame and what an insult for all those people who actually have NO CHOICE wether they want to join a religious community or not.
ThreeLions89 2 weeks ago
If McGrath keeps holding his head like that, he's gonna get some severe spine condition. Meh... who am I to judge. He's probably just helping the blood flow to the right side of his brain.
Meurglys33 2 weeks ago
"You cannot get around the concept of God." -- Adolf Hitler
AlienDominators 2 weeks ago
@minerax "matter or energy do not spontaneously generate"
so far our understanding says it doesnt, but just because you dont understand something doesnt mean you fill in the blanks with something else.
ex: a crime scene. youre working to solve it out, but you dont know who the suspect is or what the murder weapon was. you dont just "fill it in" with something; you work harder to find the answer.
that's science; keep religion out of it.
yamammiwammi 2 weeks ago
Religion gave us war.
Science gave us Computers,cars,cellphones , innovations, education.
I think religion is the demon itself.
SuperAsi666 2 weeks ago 2
@SuperAsi666 Don't forget vaccines and cures and preventives for diseases.
cararacs 2 weeks ago
wow just because someone is a christian wouldnt mean that they dont believe in evolution. religion is something that inspires you to get through life, im a christian and honestly im not that religious and religion has had 0 effect on my life. i probably know more about science than most atheists. i dont understand why they have to link my religion to this bullshit. frankly i dont give a fuck how we were created or whether or not there is heaven, i just want to earn good money and live happily
superman1113215 3 weeks ago
@superman1113215 You're quite obviously not a christian other than culturally. I mean do you go to church? if not, you are not a christian. Do you believe christ is the saviour of mankind, the son of a god?, could cure blindness, make the lame walk, walk on water, survive his own death, etc? if not you are not a christian. Have you ever read the new testament? if not, you cannot call yourself a christian because that would mean you dont even know what it is you say you believe in.
redjove2000 3 weeks ago
@redjove2000 i go to church every sunday, and i've read both old and new testaments and i believe in jesus christ
superman1113215 3 weeks ago
@superman1113215 So you say you're not that religious, and that religion has had 0 effect on your life, yet you go to church EVERY sunday, and also you dont care whether there is a heaven or not, yet you go to church EVERY sunday, makes me wonder why? All you want is money( rich man, eye of needle) so you dont practice what jesus preached, yet you say you're a christian, interesting.
redjove2000 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superman1113215 "i go to church every sunday, and i've read both old and new testaments and i believe in jesus christ"
Not something to brag about.
Meurglys33 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superman1113215 "i dont understand why they have to link my religion to this bullshit" Have you ever read the bible?
ScientificBob 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
distensible 3 weeks ago
Religion - Gives us the answer of how we got here, how everything happened and why we're here, but has no proof to back it up.
Science - Has theories of how we got here but have no idea how everything happened (Like how evolution started, or how anything in that matter began to exist) and why we're here, but is ever so growing in vast amounts of evidence.
I'm agnostic. I'm agnostic because I don't know and I'm fine not knowing.
MrMphloI 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 4 weeks ago
We as humans don't actually have the privilege of understanding why we are here. Not even a tiny bit. Religion tries to offer possible answers for that, and nobody can say it is truly wrong as nobody actually knows the answer. Another thing is he does that thing that atheists do which i cannot stand. He puts all religious peoples amount of faith on the same level, whereas actually people in the same religion believe different things about it. Religious people are just as questioning as atheists.
distensible 1 month ago
@distensible Religion doesn't offer answers, it tells you categorically why we are here and how we got here, and if you dont believe what it says you cant be a follower of that religion other than in a cultural sense. Religious have only started questioning how to interpret their holy texts relatively recently as scientific discoveries continue to show them all up for what they are. Poor, old, man made texts written for power and control over the populace. They are ignorant of the real universe.
redjove2000 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redjove2000 Okay then. You said christians are "ignorant of the real universe", i assumed you thought you knew what the 'real universe' was. I dont think religions force people to believe like some sort of cult. I think people find their own faith. And anyway, a lot of religious people don't believe in miracles or "unicorns" all religious people have varying levels of belief,. By the way im not religious at all. Try not to jump to conclusions before you call me a "giant gullible sap".
distensible 3 weeks ago
@distensible You dont believe religions force people to believe???!!! So children of all faiths that are dragged along to their respective holy houses and brainwashed from walking age onwards to believe what their parents believe isn't forced on them? Threatening them with hell fire if they don't? or in islam death to the apostate? How can you possibly make such a stupid statement?
redjove2000 3 weeks ago
@redjove2000 yup thats exactly what im saying, call me a hypocrite all you want, but wanting money isnt a sin, its a goal i set for myself. seriously, im just like any other person
superman1113215 3 weeks ago
@superman1113215 If you believe in all that religous, magical nonsense that Jesus Christ was said to be capble of, then you're a lunatic and I honestly hope you're not "just like any other person".
omicida4991 3 weeks ago
@distensible You may be able to question as much as atheists do as a Christian, or any other follower of some religion. However if you go against God you would either think that the sciencetific answer is incorrect and that what "God says" is the correct answer, or you would go with the sciencetific answer and not truly be religious. Most religious people that believe in evolution also believe that God created evolution...
omicida4991 3 weeks ago
@distensible ..even though in the beginning the theory of evolution was most likely blasphemous.
omicida4991 3 weeks ago
Well to be fair, both science and religion can both be double edged swords. It just depends on who is wielding the sword. We could use science to research cures for diseases and explore space or we could use it for biological warfare or nuclear warheads. We see that religious groups like to give donations to charity, but we also see some bombing certain world trade centres and suppressing gay rights.
But I'm still agnostic and a Richard Dawkins supporter all the way :D
devilpizza123 1 month ago
I'm not an atheist, but this video is still good for hearing their point of view in a positive way.
noblesixvideo 1 month ago
that guy had a well thought out, thought provoking response at the ready. Religious people would say "it's in the bible" and that's the end of the discussion.
fausto412 1 month ago
@SShamit1 But there must have been somewhere that the universe came from. It must have an origin as it is linked to time. Matter or energy do not spontaneously generate.
Minerax 1 month ago
@Minerax Actually funnily enough matter or energy can spontaneously come into existence according to the theory of quantum physics. In fact, as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Company in November, physicists at New South Wales University managed to create light out of nothing.
Don't go spouting factual claims when you know of no evidence to substantially support your point.
dragontype123 1 month ago
@Minerax "Matter or energy do not spontaneously generate." Not as far as we know at least. But why does that matter? Us not knowing something in no way validates some random assertion.
ScientificBob 3 weeks ago
@SShamit1 Not necessarily, he doesn't need to exist of this realm to cause an event to happen. He is limitless and unbound. This is only speculation, but I think that He can also put Himself into our world, so to speak. He can cross over the line of time that He invented and cause an event to happen. But He still isn't chained by this world and time. He can change the world as he wills it. One thing, mentioned in the Psalms, is that God cannot be fathomed. No human has ever come anywhere
Minerax 1 month ago
@Minerax If god cannot be fathomed, then why does Man believe that it knows anything about a supreme being or a divine creator? If there is some sort of higher being (which, barring superior intelligent lifeforms, there's not) why would humans have the audacity to think that they have any facts or knowledge about such a being? That's putting way too much importance on the human race, especially when you consider the vastness of the universe.
666vixen 1 month ago
@666vixen This comment is riddled with assumptions.
CK3890 1 month ago
@therealestmc85 Also tell me what "obvious contradictions" you are talking about. I see none and have studied the bible through all of my remembered life. Another point is to throw your own argument right back at you: Where did the "Big Bang" come from?
Minerax 1 month ago
@Minerax among the many scientific explanation one would be that the universe can exist in a singularity where the dimension of space-time are folded into planck's size(the smallest size possible) and the big bang would be the first event caused by a quantum fluctuation of that singularity. another explanation would be time is cyclic, thus infinite regression can occur and universe would continue to create and destroy itself over and over forever
SShamit1 1 month ago
Well God doesn't have an origin. The best example is that of a man writing a book. He can read part of it and re-read it again and alter it, then go back a few pages and alter another thing. All that hasn't happened in our time, but outside of any time. God is not of time and not limited by it. This is why God is omnipotent and omnipresent, he can alter time at any time.
Minerax 1 month ago
@Minerax to alter time is to cause an ''event'' an event requires temporal existence, if god doesnt exist in a temporal state how can he cause an event, and if he exists in a temporal state how can he omnipresent, u have to explain how a no spatial-temporal existence is possible otherwise ur statement has no value
SShamit1 1 month ago
@thinkboutit Anything that you think is true you believe in, so atheism is a belief. I can believe anything I want but it is what I select to believe that is important. For instance, I believe that God made the universe and all that is in it. And like any artist, he has left his signature, so to speak. Look up laminin and see what I'm talking about. Also, there is a galaxy very far away where the same cross symbol can be seen. He left something that he knew would be significant to us in t
Minerax 1 month ago
@Minerax sure atheism is a religion, just like not-collecting coins is a hobby, not smoking is a habit and not playing football is a sport
SShamit1 1 month ago
@Minerax "so atheism is a belief" A disbelief is not a belief, dumbass.
ScientificBob 3 weeks ago
@Aeolus14 If it was religion that kept people in the jungles, then tell me why Christian scientists have made extreme advancements in the world. Also tell me how Christianity manipulates people.
Minerax 1 month ago
@Minerax Did you watch the video? Christianity does it by encouraging people not question things; by not asking about the origin of God; by rationalizing the many obvious contractions in the bible; and by labeling people who think different the seeds of the serpent.
therealestmc85 1 month ago
@Minerax "tell me why Christian scientists have made extreme advancements in the world" Hmmm... Do you realise that those advances only happened once we kicked the church out of our affairs? Do you realise that those advances grew exponentially once we went completely secular and thus freed ourselves from religion?
Do you realise that none of the "christian" scientists actually mention god or anything remotely like it in their papers? Where's the god-variable in E=mc²?
ScientificBob 3 weeks ago 8
@Minerax "tell me how Christianity manipulates people"
'believe this or burn forever!!!'
'condoms are off the devil and will get you into hell!!!'
'being gay is an abomination and will earn you an eternity of torture!!'
Do you need more?
ScientificBob 2 weeks ago 6
Hey everyone, look up: 'Richard Dawkins Expelled'.
tippytop7 1 month ago
@tippytop7 Expelled is the funniest, most awful documentary ever.
dasschleg 1 month ago
@dasschleg Explain.
tippytop7 1 month ago
@dasschleg The first problem is the strawman of atheism they throughout the entire film.
They run the entire film under the premise that all atheists believe that there absolutely is not god, that morality is entirely subjective, and that the logical endpoint in atheism is the disbelief in freewill. These claims are not shared by all atheists and if Ben Stein had any integrity he would have pointed that out.
There are also a few other problems, like ad hoc attacks, red herrings, etc.
dasschleg 1 month ago
Lol religions are man manipulating cultures. It is those that asks questions that continues human intellectual evolution. If everyone were radically religious we would still be living in jungles.
Aeolus14 1 month ago
Atheism is not a belief dumbass. Do you not believe in unicorns? Fairy's? Well by your logic that is a belief too. The list would be infinite. Doesn't really matter anyway. God is not real and you can't prove me otherwise.
thinkboutit 1 month ago
@CK3890
(cont.)
By your logic the ppl voting non-guilty believe the person on trial to be innocent, while in fact they're merely unconvinced of guilt (which says nothing about whether they actually believe that person is innocent).
Am I getting through to you at all?, guess not.
"just skeptical, you still believe"
Ah, back to bastardizing the term "belief", cute, but wrong.
Now cut the crap with that "atheism is a belief" BS.
We're officially done, you've just wasted the last of my patience.
Seymour13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CK3890
No, as that implies belief, and atheism is the lack there-of (the not guilty in the equation) and while some atheists do infact believe that there are no gods this is an entirely seperate belief.
It doesn't matter if you just don't believe claims of god's existence or actually believe that there are no gods, you're an atheist in both cases as atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF, not a belief on it's own.
"I realized you yet again helped my argument"
. . . (-,-')
/facepalm
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
Comment removed
Seymour13 1 month ago
Comment removed
Seymour13 1 month ago
Comment removed
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 I never doubted your self-confidence, trust me. I was saying that it's strange that you keep acting as if you are so busy doing other things with your 'valuable' time when really you reply to messages of mine multiple times a day.
Yes, I'm combining two seperate statements. Two equivalent statements. The ability to reject a God does not change the fact that atheists BELIEVE (yes they do believe) that Gods do not exist.
The court analogy didn't make sense btw.
Try again.
CK3890 1 month ago
[trust me, dealing with the intellectual equelevant of someone trying to "help you" see that 1+1=3 doesn't motivate me either]
Seymour13 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CK3890
"You cannot give me"
Yes I can, after years of debates like this I make a point nowadays of NOT walking ppl through the obvious, especially when I've already provided the necessary material for ppl to figure it out for themselves.
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
Comment removed
Seymour13 1 month ago
Comment removed
Seymour13 1 month ago
Figure it out yourself or not at all, I already provided the needed material for you to educate yourself on the matter, I'm not gonna read it to you aswell.
Seymour13 1 month ago
[I don't really worry that much about wether or not someone takes something as insulting nowadays, just wether or not I actually intend it as such.
Like I always say; if you worry about stepping on people's toes you'll never put one foot in front of the other]
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 @CK3890 Playing the referee here I have to give CK the win for not reverting to juvenile insults. That said, intellectual honesty requires an attitude of disbelief regarding a claim until evidence is put forth, one is not called upon to prove a negative. However, many theistic ideas are actually not objective claims, but subjective perspectives, and as such cannot be as easily refuted. In my experience atheists tend to be too hostile and uneducated to recognize this.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@fezrockson
"juvenile insults"
To call someone an idiot generally doesn't mean that person is an idiot across the board, it usually refers to a specific situation/topic (just as I can be an idiot from time to time, no-one escapes this) and I didn't state that as certainty, there's always the option of troll (if I were to assume that the dishonesty was intentional, which I don't).
And after years of dealing with that same misconception over and over my patience isn't what it used to be.
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
@fezrockson
(cont.)
So I have no qualms anymore about telling someone when I don't have the patience left to talk to that person (about that topic, or in general).
As for the brick wall remark, I found it fitting since it felt like I was talking to a wall (no getting through to either, hence "level playing field").
But to call that an actual insult would be lowering the bar imho (I can understand it being recieved as such though).
Seymour13 1 month ago
@fezrockson I am trying to say that even though I recognize that you cannot prove that something cannot exist, it does not change the fact that both the claim "Gods exist" and the claim that "Gods do not exist" are equally lacking evidentiary support.
CK3890 1 month ago
[watch?v=OV4CghlDoJo
46:14 and onward; explains this very accurately]
Seymour13 1 month ago
Its crystal clear that god or anything like this does not exist .However for the sake of some that may believe in santa,let's imagine for a while he exist.What evil god would that be that causes wars in their name and let evil reign on earth?Even if god existed i am not sure i would lke to worship a guy like that!
AnAtheistMetalhead23 1 month ago
@AnAtheistMetalhead23 It is not at all crystal clear. I can't believe I'm even replying to a gnostic atheist but it's for the sake of people who read these comments. Evil does not reign on Earth. The balance of good and evil stays balanced. Evil people who have far too much control are doomed to fear death, and equally never fully enjoy life.
And for the record, there is as much evidence that Gods do not exist as there is evidence that they do: Absolutely none
CK3890 1 month ago
Because unlike religious people atheists do not believe in murder based on any beliefs a person may have we believe that the years you have on the earth are the only ones you've got and that it is not fair or just to take them away from anyone. And for the sake of further conversation the bible is a book of lies.
funnyvidssnet 1 month ago
Dawson is incorrect in his premise that "religion teaches people to stop questioning". The basic questions human have about their identity, purpose, et al, are welcomed and appreciated. Dawkins is also incorrect in his premise "that there is no evidence.' View "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by J. McDowell and "I Believe Because" by B. B. Baxter for all sorts of evidences. Mr. Dawkins may not have been exposed to the love of Christian people; a true evidence of changed lives.
scottybroker 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[btw, when I say "I'm very comfortable with saying I hate religion" I am ofcourse not referring to religious people, but just the religion. just pointing this out 'cause this wouldn't be the first time someone misunderstands ;)]
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 you too man :)
xVerdictsx 1 month ago
Dawkins is a Historical figure in his time.
spectrumglare 2 months ago
(Slight edit: when I said "worse off than most" I was ofcourse speaking in a general sense, not counting things such as ppl living in famine or war. Figured I'd clarify just in case.)
Seymour13 2 months ago
Point #. If God doesn't exist then there is no meaning to life. Gaining knowledge would be pointless because It would be gone when you die.
Point #2. Of course Religion can be used in a negative way, but you can say the same thing about atheism. Joseph Stalin, a man that killed 3 to 60 million people, said that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. Dawkins pretends that Muslim extremists are on the same level as these tyrants.
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx I meant Point # 1 at the beginning.
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
Respond to this video... Point # 3. Once again, you can say the same thing about Atheists. Two Atheist parents would naturally want their children to be Atheists as well.
His entire argument is relatively weak. The British accent does make him sound smart tho ;)
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
Point 1 is null, the mere fact that we are here, able to experience joy and spend time with the people we love, is enough meaning.
People who need a god to have meaning in life worry me tbh...
Point 2 is null aswell, you confuse atheism (a mere lack of belief) with (an extreme form of) anti-theism (the idea that religion is inherently harmful).
Point 3 is null aswell, pounding a religion into a child's head isn't the same as raising a child absent religious infuence.
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 Rebuttal. Point one- Say that to a person who's family was killed in front of them and they probably wont have the same response as you. Not everyone experiences the joy I'm guessing you have.People everywhere need and feel as if there is something after life. This want for life after death is evidence enough for me that it exists, just as hunger is evidence of food existing.
Point 2- Isn't Dawkin's dogmatic behavior make him equally against religion?
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
"This want for life after death"
Tbh all it is evidence of is that alot of people are afraid of death and need a crutch when dealing with the loss of loved ones, and when dealing with life in general.
"Not everyone experiences the joy I'm guessing you have"
Nope, most ppl have.
And for the major part of my life I've actually been much worse off than most.
"Dawkin's dogmatic behavior"
Eh?
"difference in pounding religion into someones head and telling them what you believe"
True.
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 #1. I'd say that is true to an extent, but does that make it any less true? Food is a crutch for hunger but it doesn't make it any less real.
#2. I honestly don't think you've met enough people to hold that as truth.
#3. let me elaborate... Dawkin's shows as much hate for religion as any anti-theist. Behavior like this by any influential Gov. or group of Gov. leaders would eventually cause something similar to the Russian massacres.
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
1: Nope, food is not a crutch.
A crutch is something you think you "need" to get through something, while not actually needing it.
On the other hand, we can't last without food.
2: Well, I do get around alot, also considering my own past (which is something I'd rather not discuss in detail) I'd think I have something to go on as far as that point is concerned.
But don't get me wrong, I understand the appeal of such beliefs, reality can be very harsh.
(cont.)
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 1: I misunderstood what you meant by crutch.( lol ). Let me go back to my original argument. I honestly believe that any person, religious or not, hopes with a passion that there is something after life. It might be on your deathbed before you realize this but none the less we all have this hope. This might be fueled by fear like you originally argued but without this belief or something similar to it you will be depressed. Do you honestly believe death is an absolute end? (cont.)
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@Seymour13 2. Are all of these people atheist?
3. You have great points about Gov. under atheistic influence but I don't think that a Gov. should have the right to tell you what you should be able to tell your kids, personally. This issue doesn't really concern the main topic of the discussion so I'll stop it here.
"All we're trying to teach is honest skepticism." I would say that nearly everyone that attends my church is an honest skeptic. I can't say the same about all religious people (cont
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
Respond to this video...which is what I think causes most of the science/religion tension.
The question is 'does science disprove the existence of God'. The answer is no. The only reason science has a problem with religion is because of the presence of miracles in the Bible for example. Science says that if we cant find a natural cause for something, than it didn't happen. This is the same thing as a drunk that has dropped and lost his keys in the dark and refuses to look anywhere (cont.)
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
Respond to this video...except under a streetlight, because it would be hard to find it in the dark. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's not real.
I would also say that the order and beauty of the universe points to a divine creator.
(Thanks for talking with me about this. I'm a 16 year old newly found Christian that is trying to argue for God. I admit I'm not very good at it but I hope to get better.)
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
Yw ;).
"Do you honestly believe death is an absolute end"
I think it is, but I can't say for sure, I've never seen reason to believe in an afterlife though.
I wouldn't even want to exist in a concious state for all eternity, eternity tends to get boring (it's forever), wether it's in 10.000 years or 100.000.000.000.000 years
"does science disprove the existence of God"
This is not the question tbh.
It's all about wether or not there's empirical evidence for the god claim.
(cont.)
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 Completely wrong. That is not the question true, but theism is not a claim. It is a belief. Just like atheism. (A)gnosticists make claims because they are people. There is not empirical evidence for the claim of Gods just as there can NEVER BE empirical evidence for the claim that Gods do not exist.
CK3890 1 month ago
@CK3890
Not sure which comment you responded to, but anyway.
- Theism ITSELF does make claims (whether individual theists make a truth-claim is another story, but alot do), the claim that there is a god, that this god created existence itself, etc.
- Atheism is N-O-T a belief, but a lack there-of, the refusal to accept theism's claim; the existence of a god.
It says nothing about what beliefs we do hold.
Unless ofcourse you want to bastardize the term belief as to include non-beliefs.
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 1. Theism does not make any claims. People can make claims, through words or written language. Theism is just a belief system, like atheism.
2. There are only two choices. You either believe or you don't believe. Disbelieving in the existence of Gods is believing that Gods do not exist. The only way to LACK belief is to have never even heard of the concept of Gods. It is not bastardization, it is true. Atheists hold the belief that all Gods do not exist.
CK3890 1 month ago
@CK3890
(cont.)
- Yes, there is no evidence either way as one can't distinguish between the unobservable and the non-existent..
The point is to maintain an honest skeptic mindset; (important) claims require evidence, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
And what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Until a claim is proven, disbelief is the most intellectually honest stance one can take (depending on the severity of the claim).
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 God's existence needs to be proved only if God is rigidly defined as having certain properties. If God is defined to be the supreme entity that encompasses the universe then by definition God exists; only God's properties are unknown. There is nothing more or less intellectually honest about this perspective, it is merely a different frame of reference.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@fezrockson Very true comment. It echoes what I just said to him and adds so much more. I hope he understands now.
CK3890 1 month ago
@fezrockson
Cute, but no.
"supreme entity that encompasses the universe"
Then it needs to be proven that there is indeed a "supreme entity" that encompasses the universe, otherwise it's just a fancy way of referring to existence itself and the entire discussion on that matter becomes utterly pointless.
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 You are correct in as much as God as I define him may be nothing more than 'a fancy way of referring to existence' (in fact the Hebrew name for God most often used in the Bible just means existence), but I disagree on your assertion that the discussion is pointless. We are dealing with philosophy, essentially the study of the intractable problems of life. The most important step in solving a problem is often choosing a frame of reference, despite the choice being a subjective one.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@Seymour13 Correct and correct. Skeptical mindset is the correct one. And once again, how can you be so sure that Gods do not exist at all when there is absolutely no evidence that ANYTHING doesn't exist?
You're missing the point. Both atheism and theism are not logical mindsets driven by evidentiary substance. They are beliefs. Neither makes a claim. Both stances are entire intellectually dishonest because there is an equal lack of evidence.
CK3890 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CK3890
1 - Yes it does, theistic books like the bible state shit like god's existence as fact.
Agree to disagree as I'm obviously not getting through to you, and this kind of shit tends to give me a headache.
"how can you be so sure"
*sigh* Sure of what?, just because I don't believe the theistic claim doesn't mean I'm 100% sure on what is or isn't out there, it just means that I see no reason to believe that there is a god.
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
@CK3890
(cont.)
2 - "only way to LACK belief"
When presented with a claim you either believe or stick with the default position of disbelief, you trying to dress it up as another belief is BEYOND dishonest.
So excuse me for having no further patience left for you, this is where I bow out.
I smell either troll or idiot, and it doesn't matter which as neither are worth more of my time.
Please direct any further comments to the brick wall to your left, that might level the playing field for you.
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 Once more, there is no claim. Theism and atheism do not claim anything. They believe things. Gnostics claim things through word of mouth and written word. If you would like to analyze gnostic claims, you must remember that there are two claims to consider: the claim that Gods exist and the claim that Gods do not exist
And once more, neither claim holds any weight. I thank you for bowing out. I do not like talking to those who cannot hold constructive arguments.
CK3890 1 month ago
@CK3890
*sigh* Ok, last time I'm even trying; there IS a claim, the bible (amongst other religious books) for example states the existence of a god as F-A-C-T (and that's a fact).
Gnostic/Agnostic people are a seperate matter.
"I do not like talking to those who cannot hold constructive arguments"
Me neither, hence the bowing out (tbh I'm not sure why I'm even bothering now).
I have yet to see you put forth constructive (or even reasonable) argument for why atheism would be a belief.
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 Once more. The Bible was written by PEOPLE. It was not written by air. An atheist like yourself should know this. The Bible is not theism. It is a theist book, in that in teaches people to BELIEVE in God, but it does not make claims itself. It never once states the existence of God as fact either, btw.
I am perfectly capable of holding constructive arguments. Read my message to fez and you'll see I wanted to help you. You keep putting out insults. Cont'd next comment
CK3890 1 month ago
@Seymour13 The Bible is a book. It cannot claim anything. People have claimed things through it. But the Bible does not have Hadith. It is left up to interpretation.
Finally, you're right I have not made an argument for why atheism is a belief. That's because it's common knowledge and I showed that it is with simple words. You don't believe Gods exist is the same as You believe Gods don't exist. If you say this is false, you believe in at least 1 God. This would make you theist.
CK3890 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CK3890
(cont.)
As for your little bit about both claims needing proof, I agree on that (but then again, I never disputed that).
The only problem I have with you is that you dishonestly try to dress a lack of belief up as just another belief system (something I don't take kindly to).
I'll say this again; watch?v=OV4CghlDoJo, 46:14 and onward explains (and dismantles) this misconception you're having very accurately.
Either way, get it or don't, not my problem...
*bows out permanently*
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 It isn't a misconception. Tell me how 'not believing Gods exist' or 'disbelieving in the existence of Gods' is NOT the same as 'believing Gods do not exist' or 'believing in the non-existence of Gods?'. Everytime I argue with an atheist it boils down to this and everytime they have no rational argument for how these claims are any different.
Usually they just give me a link to a video and say 'it is a lack of belief'. I'm giving you a chance to be constructive. Take it.
CK3890 1 month ago
@CK3890
"Usually they just give me a link"
No shit, because that saves a shitload of time that would otherwise be spent on a senseless argument.
"Tell me how 'not believing Gods exist' or 'disbelieving in the existence of Gods' is NOT the same as 'believing Gods do not exist' or 'believing in the non-existence of Gods".
Case in point, this is answered at great length in the vid I linked.
Furthermore, it's up to you to show that they are the same, which you haven't on any level whatsoever.
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 Haha so that's your final argument? Just the video? If the video explains it so well, just tell me. How are those claims not equivalent?
Futhermore it's up to me? WHAT? You're the one who keeps claiming 'it is a lack of belief'. Both of us are claiming opposite things. The burden of proof is upon anyone who makes a claim. We have both made claims. Anyways, I have shown you with a conditional sentence, it's inverse, how they are the same. You have shown nothing.
CK3890 1 month ago
@CK3890
Anyway, "I don't believe in a god's existence" doesn't equate to "I believe no god exists", I have nothing to say about that which isn't stated in the video you obviously still haven't watched (and out of the 15+ minutes spent on that subject, it's already explained perfectly within the first 2).
"I'm giving you a chance"
Lol, now that's rich.
This last response was a courtesy btw, don't expect any more of that from my end as my intended last response was 2 responses ago.
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 Now you're changing the argument. Atheism is not the rejection of 'A' God, it's the rejection of any and all Gods. If it wasn't, again, that means you accept at least one God and thus you are a theist.
The last response came just the ones before that because you know you have absolutely no counter argument. Try again. I'm giving you another rich chance.
CK3890 1 month ago
@CK3890
If you have the time to wait for me to type a wall of text to explain it to you, and then have the time to read it, you've got the time to just watch a fucking vid that provides valid arguments and analogies which would take up more space than our entire conversation has taken up 'till now.
There's a difference between not wanting to make the effort (believe me, I WAS tempted. past tense), and realizing it would just be an uttery wasted effort (hence the link).
(cont.)
Seymour13 1 month ago
@Seymour13 Before I retort, I'd like to point out again that I am trying to have a constructive argument. Your need to show me the value of your time prevents this. Once more, why is it that if the video explains it so quickly that you cannot reiterate?
You cannot give me the 'I don't want to make the effort' when I get response after response. I am not trying to break your ego. I am trying to teach you that thinking in other perspectives can be constructive. You are not God.
(cont.)
CK3890 1 month ago
@Seymour13 To further elaborate, I'm sure you are going to respond with quotes on weak atheism and strong atheism. These are misconceptions. Atheism itself is the belief that all Gods do not exist. There is no weak or strong athe'ism'. You can be a weak athe'ist', and simply be skeptical of all Gods (agnostic) or a strong athe'ist', and accept firmly that all Gods do not exist.
This goes back to our earlier discussion. People and abstract nouns are not the same thing.
CK3890 1 month ago
@xVerdictsx
(cont.)
One can't seperate the unobservable from the non-existent.
This enables one to make up any unfalsifiable claim (and this is why personal testimony never cuts it), my personal favorite is russel's teapot, no-one has ever been able to disprove it ;).
And the teapot is infinitely more likely than any concept of god I've ever heard.
Besides, that's just about a god's existence, then come the theistic claims that we know "his" will and such.
(cont.)
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 Again, there are no theistic claims. Theists can make claims, but they would be gnostic people. Neither atheism nor theism makes a claim. They are but beliefs.
And yes you're right in why personal testimony does not cut it, but you cannot discount the fact that we humans are of very limited knowledge. It is possible that everything exists. You cannot assume anything in life, and that is why both gnostic atheists and gnostic theists do not have constructive arguments.
CK3890 1 month ago
@xVerdictsx
(cont.)
"Science says" that if we can't find a natural cause for a confirmed occurance, then we just don't know the cause (like the big bang, we know it happened, we don't know the all specifics about how it was triggered).
Only if that which is claimed has not been confirmed, and then no evidence is found, it is assumed to not exist UNTIL satisfactory evidence has been found, this is skepticism (null hypothesis).
The greater the claim, the greater the need for evidence.
(cont.)
Seymour13 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
(cont.)
"order and beauty"
Existence is very chaotic here on earth (natural disasters, diseases and everything in between, poor design imho).
And most of the known universe is extremely hostile to any form of life.
"you will be depressed"
I never quite got that tbh, I mean I know the reason why this is true for alot of people but I always find it somewhat strange.
Seymour13 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
[PS: ""I'm a 16 year old newly found Christian that is trying to argue for God""
I can dig up some vids from my fav's concerning these topics and send them to your PM box if you want me to, bound to give you much food for thought ;). It would take a while though as I've got over 2000 fav's to search though.
Either way, it's been a pleasure talking to you ^^.]
Seymour13 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
(cont.)
3: Well, ofcourse.
I'm very comfortable with saying I hate religion, nothing wrong with that, nor does anti-theism itself lead to "Russian massacres", power hungry people with a tyrannical mindset that see competition in religion's influence will lead to that.
All Anti-Theism would lead to is the prohibition of all forms of religious indoctrination concerning children, and religious institutions would only be available to those 18 years of age or above.
(cont.)
Seymour13 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
(cont.)
"God doesn't exist"
One side is selling something, the other side just isn't buying that's being sold, not selling something else.
All we're trying to teach is honest skepticism.
Claims require evidence, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence (and are in much greater demand for evidence compared to trivial claims).
Extra-ordinary claims presented absent empirical evidence shouldn't be accepted as true.
That's my take on it anyway.
Seymour13 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seymour13 which is what I think causes most of the science/religion tension.
The question is 'does science disprove the existence of God'. The answer is no. The only reason science has a problem with religion is because of the presence of miracles in the Bible for example. Science says that if we cant find a natural cause for something, than it didn't happen. This is the same thing as a drunk that has dropped and lost his keys in the dark and refuses to look anywhere (cont.
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seymour13 except under a streetlight, because it would be hard to find it in the dark. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean it's not real.
I would also say that the order and beauty of the universe points to a divine creator.
(Thanks for talking with me about this. I'm a 16 year old newly found Christian that is trying to argue for God. I admit I'm not very good at it but I hope to get better.)
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
Respond to this video... Point 3- there's a difference in pounding religion into someones head and telling them what you believe. I think that Atheist parents and Christian/religious parents would have the same influence on their children.
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
@xVerdictsx
And I was reffering directly to the problem of indoctrination, as that's "passing on their beliefs" as opposed to just talking about it.
The problem I see alot is that the parents (ofcourse believing that their religion is true, and believing that they have a duty to teach it to their child as truth) don't just say "this is what I believe" but instead make knowledge claims and try to teach it as fact.
Seymour13 2 months ago
@Seymour13 Very, very true. You're saying that it's unfair to teach something they believe is truth to their children as fact, but isn't it equally as unfair to say that a person shouldn't or shouldn't be able to teach them this?(badly worded sentence sorry) Wouldn't you be mad if you couldn't tell your kids that God doesn't exist? Think about perspective.
xVerdictsx 2 months ago
Voice of reason...huhh..
kaiakonsap 2 months ago in playlist philo/art
If McGrath didn't have such an intelligent voice, appearance and academic reputation, he would be put on the shelf with Evangelical Christians.
HULLOHULLO15 2 months ago
His argument that religion is dangerous because faith can be used to justify things like terrorism is very flawed. Rationalism untempered by faith in a moral code can be every bit as bad, and has in fact been responsible for the largest genocide in history. Vote this post up if you agree that a balanced world view requires faithful adherence to a code of morality as well as rationalism, and that neither one can substitute for the other.
fezrockson 2 months ago
@fezrockson The morality of the middle east religions is extremely dubious to say the least; you could even say it is incredibly distasteful (incest, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery etc.
Who says atheism cannot accomodate a balanced, rational view? Read, watch and listen to the arguments of genuine atheists , they sound pretty damn rational and balanced to me. You can't call them unbalanced simply because they just happen not to have an invisible friend in the sky.
aussiesam01 2 months ago
@aussiesam01 Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible, the sacred text at the core of the middle eastern religions (I assume you are referring to the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and its offspring, not the myriad obscure cults that they have mostly supplanted) know that all of the things you listed above are forbidden. As an atheist guided by rationality alone on the other hand, there is no reason to rule any of them out. Why not improve the gene pool by wiping out a few 'lesser' races?
fezrockson 2 months ago
@fezrockson Nonsense! Thise things are not forbidden at all. They are positively demanded, including such niceties as killing all the women and children of a city and ripping the unborn children out of the wombs of their mothers. And just how do you support claim that anyone in history has commited any of the attrocities you list in the name of atheism or used atheism as the rationale for their murderous actions,
aussiesam01 1 month ago
@aussiesam01 They are in fact forbidden; I studied for two decades at traditional Jewish schools that teach the ancient texts as they have been taught for thousands of years, you on the other hand are talking out of your ass. Furthermore, I made no claim about history (although there are many examples), I merely asked a theoretical question, one that should be easy to answer if you are a serious philosopher and an atheist: why shouldn't an atheist improve the gene pool through genocide?
fezrockson 1 month ago
@fezrockson it's all tosh no matter what version of the garbage you take. Personal morality is what guides most atheists to tell them that killing is wrong, We don't need a bible to tell us that. And here:
Psalm 137:9
Judges 21:10-12
1 Samuel 15:3
2 Kings 10:17
++++ lots more
It's all nasty, no matter which version you prefer
dashing kids on stones was a nice touch do you think?
Now go away. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.
aussiesam01 1 month ago
@aussiesam01 Tell me more about this 'Personal morality', is it based on logic? If so, please indicate the logical fallacy in improving the gene pool through genocide. If you cannot then you must concede. If 'Personal morality' is not logically derived then it confers no advantage to religion as it constitutes a religion in itself. Regarding the quotes above: you have taken these out of context and have no understanding of their implications or the oral tradition that accompanies the text.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@fezrockson Your question isn't serious, it's ridiculous and time wasting. Not to respond to your silly question is not to concede, I have more sense than to get into arguments with an idiot. "it's out of context" is the silly meaningless argument that many theologians spout when they've been caught out. It isn't a real argument.
If want information on personal morality there are plenty of books etc out there with which you can inform yourself. I'm not going to do your work for you.
aussiesam01 1 month ago
@aussiesam01 By failing to defend against my argument you have in effect conceded. The response 'Your question isn't serious, etc.' is not a valid argument. Furthermore, you started this debate by responding to my post, so if I am an idiot then you aren't looking too much better. With regard to taking things out of context: the bible is a text that was compiled 2500 years ago, and written even earlier; a lot of interpretation is necessary, and often a good understanding of iron age reality.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@aussiesam01 Being as you have clearly not done the requisite research in this area you cannot presume to having a position of understanding. This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty that causes theologians not to take atheist bible commentary seriously. There are many well-developed conflicting perspectives, but taking some quotes off the internet at random (Kings 10:17? Really???) does not qualify.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@aussiesam01 However, if you still need a response that is satisfying to continue the argument then I submit to you the following: the quotes you posted were anecdotal accounts of IRON AGE warfare, not commandments or even suggestions as to how warfare should be conducted in the 21st century. While you may find history disturbing, it is not relevant as an attack on the code of law laid out in the same text.
fezrockson 1 month ago
@fezrockson I didn't need a response but thanks anyway. I think you need to go back and read your story book. Many of the passages given there are quite clearly commands from some invisible man in the sky. Stop apologising for your religion.
Bye now
aussiesam01 1 month ago
@fezrockson " While you may find history disturbing, it is not relevant as an attack on the code of law laid out in the same text."
Of course it's relevant as the events were directly commanded to take place by the main actor in your book.
You may not enjoy this video but it's what your brain is looking for.
Objective Morality vs. Christianity by NonStampCollector on YT
Or you may, of course, continue deluding yourself
aussiesam01 1 month ago
wtf is up with this guy's head ?? :o
AtheismGate 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you do not need religion to love.
mikerozo 2 months ago
Richard dawkins is my GOD. :)
And a very sexy god i must say.
RadSMeshhy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He will die soon.
ChsSami 2 months ago
but details do matter....sigh...foolish Dawkins...religion can be bad, but not love.
vincewinsobviously 2 months ago
but details do matter....sigh...foolish Dawkins...
vincewinsobviously 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I obey love and reason. That's the best way I know to obey God.
eastariel 3 months ago
Beautiful, elegant reply from Dawkins. I would expect no less.
Uberlaser 3 months ago
@Uberlaser Indeed! a reply with triple distilled intelligence.
cluengas2k 3 months ago
Atheism Brought Me Here
dfssgverbgerdsfv 3 months ago
I was looking for the bit following this when McGrath responds does anyone know where I could find it please?
peteface24 3 months ago
@peteface24 OK false alarm I found the whole thing here: watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18&feature=BFa&list=PL355FC49FE0207BF0&lf=results_main
peteface24 3 months ago
body language analysis see how other guy tilts his chin means he think he is better person then richard dawkins. richard dawkins has face level so isnt thinking liuke that
daveforfun22 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you atheists and people who lack faith...only listen to richard dawkins to reassure yourselves...why dont you ask yourselves WHY DO I NEED TO KEEP REASSURING MYSLEF? I would tell you why, but you already know....but you already know.
Badam16 3 months ago
He has the arrogance to use God's living creativity, including himself, to propagate his non-living god called athesism
FindingJesusverytrue 3 months ago
@FindingJesusverytrue Jesus is a fucking zombie shut the fuck up
IBadF1sh 3 months ago
@FindingJesusverytrue BUUUAAAAHHHHH HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA
MrSwigadew 3 months ago
@FindingJesusverytrue "God's living, creativity, including himself" is your claim, based on nothing but a highly questionable "holy" book full of contradictions and endorsement of slavery, to name only one instance of immorality in the bible. Something like that, stated as unquestionable truth, is by definition dishonest. Stating anything as absolute truth without support by evidence is dishonest, be it the god of the bible, be it godzilla or santa claus. You pick it.
MarlosZappa 3 months ago
@FindingJesusverytrueyou'r a idiot if you think atheism is a religion, it has nothing to do with faith, it promotes what's true based on evidence and observation, which in turn makes you to think, question and helps you to open your eyes to the world around you, unlike your pathetic, narrow minded, delusional and immoral religion which asks to blindly follow an idiot (jesus) who may or may not have existed, all based on the most awful and disgusting book which was written for a medieval audience
kryo101 3 months ago 2
@FindingJesusverytrue arrogance you say?
yeah, atheism, the arrogant theory that the universe wasn't build for us.
patataton 3 months ago 3
@patataton Why is that arrogant? Rather the opposite I would say.
MultiKronblom 2 months ago
@MultiKronblom irony dude
patataton 2 months ago