@ProtestantsRUs He's just promoting reason. Atheism is not a belief system, it's the lack of belief in gods. I assume you don't believe in Voodoo right? Are you part of the religion called "Avoodooism"? No, you aren't convinced by Voodoo (Aka Vodou). The same is true of atheists. He promotes skeptical thinking and if you think skeptically you will most likely drop your religious assumptions.
@ProtestantsRUs First off, atheism isn't a religion, if you think that, you're an idiot. Sam Harris isn't trying to convert anyone to anything. He is trying to destroy religion by pointing out how harmful to the progression of our species it is.
@GenRipper No true Christian is antisemitic. Hatred toward any people group is clearly anti-Christian. A so-called Christian who hates Jews is also mentally lacking, since Jesus, Christianity's founder, was a Jew.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
@Mogley52 yet, look, here we all are. the chances of you being born at all (or me) were also fantastically small, yet, again, here we are. doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred. the simple truth is, yes, everything has fantastically little chance of occurring, yet it does. maybe something supernatural makes it all happen. at this point, there is no reason to believe that is true.
@Mogley52 yet, look, here we all are. the chances of you being born at all (or me) were also fantastically small, yet, again, here we are. doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred. the simple truth is, yes, everything has fantastically little chance of occurring, yet it does. maybe something supernatural makes it all happen. at this point, there is no reason to believe that is true.
@Mogley52 yet, look, here we all are. the chances of you being born at all (or me) were also fantastically small, yet, again, here we are. doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred. the simple truth is, yes, everything has fantastically little chance of occurring, yet it does. maybe something supernatural makes it all happen. at this point, there is no reason to believe that is true.
@Mogley52 that all changes in an open universally large space with infinite time. its the monkey banging on a typerwriter theory.. given enough time you can put together a masterpeice from his random button smashing.. if amino acids formed and had an infinite amount of time to work things out, it can form protein and a cell, yes without the right sequuence it wont work, but when it has an infinite amount of time to bounce around, sooner or later it fits, so on and so on.
@raztis1 If you give a creationist a keyboard and an infinite amount of time, they STILL wouldn't be able to come up with an argument that didn't involve magic.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
@Mogley52 there are rooms full of evidence proving that we evolved from the ape family. r u trying to prove creationism by talking facts? because i would love to hear about your rooms full of evidence and 98% of scientists that back creationism.. especially since the amount of evidence of creation could fill my palm with room for a burger. the process of evolution is fact, only quacks try and disprove it anymore. the "theory" is there only for the direction, not the process.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
You are too radical not to believe anything. Atheist is a very poor description of who you are. You just hate truth. Ordered functions that most of the most common elements have in life forms according to a preexisting word require having a Maker of the universe who is also the only One who is able to Make us. That's what the evidence is. Our Maker is the One who stretched out the fabric of time and space so hydrogen and other elements would be working parts inside of us.
@JungleJargon right, now what do you say to a person who assumes everything they've been told as a child is true and never scrutinizes their own belief system? you should be appalled at your willful display of ignorance. Atheists don't believe in anything? Hate truth? WTF are you talking about? Your video is flooded with science literate critics and rightly so. FYI, you'd be super rich if you could disprove evolution. Put down your holy book, read something else & earn that money bitch.
@JungleJargon "You are not saying anything to convince me one way or another." - the definition of close-mindedness. You just disqualified yourself from further debate.
@JungleJargon "You are not saying anything to convince me one way or another." - the definition of close-mindedness. You just disqualified yourself from further debate.
The biggest problem with atheists is that they think they are so smart. If you're a true intellectual free thinking maverick then face the reality of several points; A there isn't a shred of evidence of the big bang, it's simply the only option for atheists, and B there isn't a single evolutionary link of the billions of fossils discovered, it's all there in black and white.
@HelloWerldLawl A small point - both of those theories were derived from the evidence. You don't start with an idea, develop a theory, and THEN go and try and find the evidence. The Big Bang and evolution were both derived from the evidence we observe. To say there is no evidence for either is a simple way of saying "I haven't studied either of them".
Also, atheism isn't anything to do with either of those theories - it is the lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
"God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them"...Bono
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
Author: Dr. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory "A remarkable discovery has gradually emerged in astrophysics over the past two decades and is now essentially undisputed: that certain key physical constants have just the right values to make life possible", Sir Martin Rees, the British Astronomer Royal and one of the foremost cosmologists writes: “Our emergence and survival depend on very special ‘tuning’ of the cosmos --- a cosmos that may be vaster than the universe that we can actually see.”
Max Planck, father of quantam mechanics "I can tell you as a result of my research; There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness"
Dr Marc Kirschner, chairman of the Department of Biology, Harvard Medical School, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers."
@TomRaphaelWolf Of course the counter to your website, can be found at Reasons to Believe, the integration of Science and Faith simply google;.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics for a great article debunking your claim:) The internet rocks!
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that “ The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where Christianity is exploding."
The fact that omnipotence in itself is a paradox and, for example, the judeo-christian god IS said to omnipotent, means it does not exist at least in this dimension. If it exists in another dimension, I ask once more- show me evidence of it effecting this world. If you cannot, once more, as I said in the beginning of the debate, this can be used to prove the existance of everything.
@TomRaphaelWolf Review the Quantum Activist. You will see that the only paradoxes come from the mistaken belief in a "ground up" version of causation. A downward causation offers no paradoxes . Clearly the behavior of electrons and photons independant of space/time is ample evidence that matter is affected by outside forces. Existance is consciousness, as evidence you can look to quantum physics and the predetermined laws that govern existance. Materialism, the basis of atheism, is disproven.
@moonlightbateman Actually, no. Downward causation causes more paradoxes not just in QM (since it assumes a boatload of things), it causes paradoxes in physics-type sciences.
An omnipresent being, God, would and does exist in all dimensions, thus no paradox. From Christianity-Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" and "In my father's house there are many mansions". Feel free to look it up. BTW This is less of a debate and more of a lecture:)
@moonlightbateman This IS a debate. A bit of a useless one (I learned, then learned what I learned was wrong, but at least I learned that its wrong now. :p). How could god exist in anything below the 7th dimension (the dimension where people have debated that that is where any deity would be able to exist)? Its impossible, it would have trouble going through the dimensions. If god or gods existed, they would exist in the 7th dimension, and travel downwards (in the dimension line).
@TomRaphaelWolf God exists in all dimensions and all dimensions exist within God. I think that clears up your argument. BTW Thank you for admitting other dimensions exist, by doing so you have moved on from materialistic atheism. Looks like you changed you mind afterall:)
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that “ The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."
@moonlightbateman However, we lack the evidence of having something that shows omnipotency or omnipresent (sp?) in our world, let alone something that distinguishes it from all other gods- it could be any god. It could just be the fact that there are more complex beings or just plainly different beings/things/inserthere effecting our dimension. On Amit- no one stated that there is no free will (I actually think there isn't). And again, in this world causal power is an illusion to us
@TomRaphaelWolf because, obviously, our senses can trick us- that does not mean it actually happens. We are just unsure of it, but again, that can be fixed for the most part with proper experimenting. Again, blah however we can reduce the chance of having a "hallucination" with having multiple/large amount of people observing with us/reduce the chance of having faulty information. I'd buy the book or movie but I can't, to know more info on it.
@TomRaphaelWolf Nice try, but if you are positing a "more complex being" then you are admitting that you believe beings more complex than humans exist. Care to explain that being using atheism as a basis? BTW, You also admitted that the Aspire experiment showed that materialist science has no explanation for how 2 photons communicate non-locally (over distance). But you admit it happens. Care to try explaining that using atheistic materilism?
@moonlightbateman Haven't seen enough and don't have a Ph.D in the matter but it makes sense, for the most part. Other people with the same knowledge as said professor have rejected it, not basing it off of that though (makes me look out for mistakes). Anyway- complex being as in WE are a 4th dimensional being. We would be way more complex compared to a 1st, or 2nd dimension being. A being from the 5th or above dimensions would. Boom. No need to say "its god" or "goddidit."
@TomRaphaelWolf God did it or "Nuthin dun it". The choice is pretty clear. "Nuthin dun it" ( atheism) is illogical, irrational and has been proven impossible. Yet staunch atheists hold on to a disproven and debunked idea, why? I suspect they (and you) cant find God for the same reason a crook cant find a policeman. So you posit things like "space aliens" or "little green men" LOL, in fact any answer will do, except one (God). Good without God is o.
@moonlightbateman I think its pretty much impossible to know 100% who "didit", let alone a being that was thought up by humans. At least with the other options, you could see evidence left by it to see and be like "Oh, it was probably X, most likely". And once more, nice attacks. I can see the longer I can keep disproving your stuff the more you get back to ad hom-like crap. god backwards is dog, man.
@TomRaphaelWolf No ad hom at all, just showing that when you asked for evidence, it was provided. Your response was to try to ignore the evidence or attack the sources of evidence rather than deal with the evidence. The only logical conclusion to draw from that is that you will not accept any evidence counter to your worldview, especially when that evidence disproves your worldview.It is not that you believe God does not exist, you do not want God to exist. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
@TomRaphaelWolf Or it could be that God is everything that is, was or will be. Eternal. Since the exidence obviously points toward a creator God and away from an accidental or random existance as posited by materialistic atheism. Even the most die hard atheist has to admit that now that materialism has been proven wrong. Science proved it wrong, along with the eternal universe (we know it had a begining), constant universe (it is expanding) and other tenants of atheistic materialism. Sorry.
@moonlightbateman Far from it. It hasn't even changed my views (nor does it effect them). It actually worsens your views- the chance of your god "existing" is the same as every other deity made up by humans, and not counting those by other extraterrestrials. You've got to be kidding me when the thing that separates us between a stereotypical god is its omnipotence (presence, knowledge, etc). That in itself is a paradox. A being like that cannot exist.
@luyben12 Nice appeal to majority. I'm sorry, but, once more, you can prove ANY god with the fact that you connect with them spiritually- and whatever happened to its omnipotence? It can affect the physical world, can it not?. Nothing but physical evidence will convince me.
@TomRaphaelWolf Want evidence from science? The Alain Aspire experiments, 1982. A substantial number of post materialist scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness instead of matter,Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D,Nuclear Physicist- University of Oregon, shares a new perspective within science of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being. Google "The Quantum Activist "or read "God is not dead" for more information supporting God.
@moonlightbateman I didn't bother to use the "well, other scientists say that he's using a strawman to base his theory on", although that SHOULD be a worry for you. First off- the statement that outer forces can effect this universe (as in other dimensions). There's 3 normal dimensions and 1 temporal dimension (the 3-dimensional figures, and time). Assuming that others exist, such as the other 7, there's a chance of the above stages to possibly effect our dimension(but we can't interact w/ them)
@TomRaphaelWolf The fact that we can extract information based on thier existance (photon and electron behavior) seems like a pretty solid case that you are wrong about dimensions, we can and do interact with them:). So now that you have been confronted with evidence from the scientific community that contradicts materialistic atheism (which you admitted in print exists), the question is...What are you gonna do about it?
@moonlightbateman Continue to devil's advocate. :p Anyway, you do know this evidence can be used to prove anything's existance, since we do not know what is in other (higher) dimensions?
@TomRaphaelWolf But, we know (higher) dimensions exist. Which means science has proven materialistic atheism incorrect and impossible. To continue on believing something that has been disproven is irrational and illogical. Now that you know materialistic atheism is impossible- What are you gonna do about it?
@moonlightbateman I don't see how other dimensions = disproves materialism. Science would've dropped the materialistic view by now if that was true. Seeing as its a bit dumb to go on with this debate without using everything at my disposal, I looked over the essays/pages that criticize Amit's claims. Instead of writing a shitload of work here, I'll paste the main site with the majority of rebutals (you can skip the last bit/section): peterblloyd(.)org/essays/goswami.htm
@TomRaphaelWolf Rebuttals do not change the fact that in experiment after ezperiment- starting with Aspire in 1982, all of the evidence shows that the material universe is not all that there is. When you couple that with the fact that materialism is loosing mainstream followers at an alarming rate, you are forced to look the facts in the eye. Atheism is irrational, illogical and scientifically impossible. Why cling to a disproven worldview , ypu have already admitted you were wrong. Move on.
Atheists tend to have higher rates of obesity (see video as evidence), depression, suicide, isolation, mental illness, health difficulties, substance abuse, and tend to be quarrelsome, angry white men (see video as evidence). Atheists do not marry, produce offspring or live as long. Atheism is not considered sexually attractive by most females. Some ( "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazine) support the idea atheism may be a form of Aspergers Syndrome holding at 2.3% of the population
@luyben12 Atheism is not on the rise. Atheists have been holding at 2.3% of ther population for a long, long time (Encyclopedia Brittanica).BTW I think you confused my post with the other guy's.
@luyben12 I can prove ANYTHING with that kind of defense, you know. Anything. Take unicorns for example- the fact that humanity has come up with such "fictional" beings is because they exist, otherwise we wouldn't have brought them up. Be more convincing, person who is more intelligent than I.
To the (douche-bag) theists in below posts, tell me any piece evidence that can be shown to all and tested accordingly that supports the existance of the judeo-christian god. Note- this cannot be evidence that can be used to support any other deity's existance.
@luyben12 It's equally pompous and ignorant to say that you know otherwise without actually testing it in an objective manner! Medical mysteries? The human body sometimes calls it quits under an injury that shouldn't lead to death, and sometimes the body can sustain much, much more injuries, no need to say goddidit. NDE's? Do you really believe in those? You CAN indirectly disprove gods exist, though. Just look at one main trait for every and all gods- to be omnipotent. A huge paradox.
Oh PZ and Sam , when will you stop all of this bombastic hate filled rhetoric. Seriously, Meyers, Harris, Dawkins and Dennet are some of the most low key, measured people I’ve seen especially when compared to anyone on TBN. Hitch is another story and I love him for it!
I'm an "atheist," as well as a non-astrologer, a non-creationist, a non-9/11-truther, etc, but I don't feel the need to call myself these things. Atheism is a stupid bloody label because it's fucking inadequate (but I kind of like it at the same time). I'd rather call myself a Secular Humanist, but I'd much rather not call myself anything.
I'm with Sam: I just want to demolish bad ideas wherever I find them, and not fumble with stupid bloody labels along the way.
@theocean1973 I live in the American south, otherwise known as the bible belt, and im an atheist(if were talking labels). Can you imagine how confused everyone down here would be if i told them im a secular humanist. Half the people in Georgia couldnt even pronounce secular humanist. They are already confused enough, i dont think a game of linguistics would work for me.
I agree with you, its silly that i would have to even label myself a non fairy tale believer
I am a strong Christian, but I also believe strongly about respect for each others beliefs. I love this guy he so humble and though he is an Atheist I admire this man, thanks for the upload, reminds me know that not all Atheist have the same personality... Thanks..
@WayOfTheMaster454 And your just an idiot for disrespecting people, just because we have different beliefs we can't respect each other? No one is deluded but you... =)
@samuellis --I think you're forgetting what the whole Neo-Atheist movement is about: Its about HATING your faith, and just because you admire some atheist it does not mean they will hate your "delusions" any less.
@WayOfTheMaster454 Well you gotta have faith even if you are an Atheist, you have faith that what your believing is true, you trust that it's true. Sigh it's haters like you who create problems of mankind, not religion...
@samuellis That's absolute nonsense. Religious people tend to make this argument to validate faith. Atheism is not the belief in anything, but a lack of belief. We don't have faith that any supernatural being or world exist simply no one has prove that. As far as religion not creating problem, are you serious? A simple look at the three prominent monotheistic faith. All three have specific ways of worship and punishment for those who don't do everything god's way. God specifically condone
@petion2010 I'm trying really hard to look at your point your giving but it doesnt make sense to me. Sure I understand you lack belief in what I do and I lack belief in what you believe, but you believe it's true so it has to be a belief. There has been lot of things in history regaurding religion, but I look at it as us being human we do it if we believe it's right. There are only a handful of religion out there to command murder, beliefs are inferior when matched up with someone elses belief
@samuellis genocide, religious intolerance, slavery, sexism, segregation, racism, rape etc. God has specific commandment how to massacre entire population including women and children, how to sell your daughter as sex slave, how to execute rape victim and a host of disgusting behaviors. Yeah, religious people tend to pick and chose, and point out the "good stuff" in their holy holy books while ignoring the superstition, errors, contradiction and downright stupidities.
@petion2010 Now I'm only going to talk about my Religion I don't speak for others. I see there are many things you don't know, I was an Atheist for many years you really think I would become a Christian if I didn't believe all those were to happen without a purpose? What does Atheism have to offer the world or to any individual person for that matter...
Atheism offers just as much as theism: nothing. It's the totality of your beliefs that matter, not just whether you believe in a god or not. If you want atheism to offer something you can delude yourself. You have done so with theism already so why not?
@Quintinohthree Funny that you mention that Atheism has nothing to offer I totally agree. But Christianity has more to offer than you think I believe. It gives people morals, hope, faith in believing something exist besides there asolutely nothing, eternity , ultimate justice, etc... Much to say... You can be a great person believing in something else, that is something I respect a lot...
@Quintinohthree I knew you were going to quote that out when I wrote it, sorry for the misunderstanding I didnt have anymore characters to write lol. Well everyone has morals I'm just saying bibical morals that we follow as Christians no one else does. Another thing is that I believe morals to be objective I've argued plenty of times about morals being subjective but no solid arguements. But anyone can be morally good,Religion plays a role because there are set morals when believing in something
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
@moonlightbateman I'm an atheist and I'm not unpleasant or quarrelsome. Half the people I hang out with/work with and my best buddy I've known for 20 odd years are religious and we get along just fine.
That sounds like a ridiculous book. Some of the most depressing unpleasant people I've ever met were Christians but because of that I don't go around thinking every Christian has a mental disease. Do you even know what Aspergers Syndrome is? It's not exactly the same as autism.
@sk8tafrnk You just proved that you are unpleasant "That sounds like a ridiculous book" and quarrelsome "Do you even know what Aspergers Syndrome is?" and that you do not understand Aspergers Syndrome.... Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum. Strike three and you are out!! Since you are wrong about those 3 things, what else are you wrong about? Here's a clue...God!
@sk8tafrnk "That sounds like a ridiculous book"- rude, "Some of the most depressing unpleasant people I've ever met were Christians" - unpleasant, "Do you even know what Aspergers Syndrome is?"- argumentative. I think you just proved the point. 3 strikes and you are out!
@moonlightbateman If the title of your book is literally based on the title, it's ridiculous. How is that rude? Grow some skin.
I said I've met unpleasant Christians as an example to refute your point. There are pleasant people and unpleasant people, some are atheist and some are Christians.
Third of all, no credible psychologist has ever found any correlation between Asperger's and atheism. The fact you made that comparison led me to the assumption you didn't know what the condition was.
@sk8tafrnk " it's ridiculous. How is that rude?" - rude and argumentative,"Grow some skin"-unpleasant.3 more strikes:) You keep making the point for me everytime you post. Thank you.
@moonlightbateman If people can't openly disagree about issues then how are humans supposed to discuss them and come to agreements or compromises on them? All people have different needs so in order to get along we have to communicate.
If you're phased by rudeness then how can you be comfortable enough to question what you think and test it for logical soundness?
@sk8tafrnk Here's your problem- after 6 instances of rude, argumentative and unpleasant comments and a lengthy defense of those comments, no one cares what you think. You did this to yourself. In the future, a more polite, respectful and courteous response would have served you better, and I would have responded in kind. I'm afraid this is an example of too little, too late on your part... sorry. Chalk it up as a lesson learned.
@moonlightbateman Take debate class in an accredited university. Judging by your temperament a respectful debate would probably reduce you to a pile of mush.
@sk8tafrnk Rude (Take a debate class), argumentative (Judging by your temprament) and unpleasant.(reduce you to a pile of mush)..again- 3 strikes and your out, 3 outs retires the side- Thanks again, you just proved my point for me:)
@sk8tafrnk "Disagreeing with someones viewpoint"- argumentative, "I'm not really convinced you're for real anyway"- rude and unpleasant. You just cant help yourself can you? Everytime you post you prove my point. Thanks again!
@moonlightbateman If the point you're trying to prove is that only atheists are argumentative, rude and unpleasant... then do you think everyone is an atheist?
@sk8tafrnk Do you actually believe that the only way to communicate is by being argumentative, rude and unpleasant? if so, then you have not only proven my point about atheists, but you are an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about. Thanks again:)
@moonlightbateman So the particular way I was engaging a debate on a youtube comment board alone defines the way every atheist is in every other aspect of life?
Using the same method you did I could make up anything I wanted, sift through comments, and "prove it." Any logical person with enough brains cells to have a valuable opinion wouldn't use that method to prove something. You prove that to avoid providing more evidence for you viewpoint, you say I'm rude. It's called a red herring.
@sk8tafrnk Nope, just pointing out that you are rude, argumentative and unpleasant- a perfect example of my original point:) You did all the work for me, and you continue to do so:) Thanks again!
@moonlightbateman I've had Christians confront me very rudely, unpleasantly, and start trying to argue with me even though we agreed on the same issue on youtube and real life situations when they don't even know I'm an atheist most of the time.
So using moonlightbateman's scientific method I determine that Christians are rude, argumentative and unpleasant also.
@sk8tafrnk Actually that was Wired Magazine and Vox Day, author of the the book "The Irrational Atheist" (I'll repost the original comment for you) that that made the observation, you just provided a great example-yourself. Keep up the good work:)
@moonlightbateman I read the book. It's terrible. There's not a single logically relevant argument in the book (I read it because you can download it for free), and anyone who believe he has written an effective argument is a disgrace to the human kind. For one it's filled with cheap insults which is hypocritical at best.
Generally 99% of people are perfectly intelligent people, so I hope you realize that the 1% of idiots who are going to take your point seriously don't really worry me.
@sk8tafrnk "It's terrible"- unpleasant, "the 1% of idiots who are going to take your point seriously don't really worry me"- rude and argumentative. You just keep making the point of the book. You are an excellent example of "The Irrational Atheist" and why it is accurate. Thanks for providing another great set of examples:)
@moonlightbateman Whatever the Hell you're talking about, you can't even bring up the slightest disagreement.
All my friends (are Christian by the way) would be mad if I disagreed with something they were believing and didn't bring it up. Study sociology. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with what you believe then you don't even deserve to be incorporated into human society. Nothing I've said has been outwardly rude. I haven't said anything that ran even close to your personal character.
@sk8tafrnk I have a degree in Sociology from the University of New York:) I have proven rgar your comments are rude, unpleasant and argumentative time and time again, The fact that you are arguing over whether or not you are argumentative only proves you wrong...again:)
@moonlightbateman I talk to 100's of people on youtube about the same types of things I started talking to you about and nobody said I was rude. So apparently 99% of mankind has a more human expectation for conversation than you do.
Plus, the only place I debate religion and whatnot is on youtube and that's it so the only thing you could potentially be proving is that atheists are argumentative on youtube. Degree in Sociology huh? High five (cough).
2 Peter 2:12-14 "But these, like brute beast made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions.., having eyes full of adultery and cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls.They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children."
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
@BillKiernan For a laugh its Saint Luke Evengelical School - unacreddited of course but they are honest in proclaiming on their front page that their "degrees" are for "personal edification only" LOL
@Fromanttodugong Letr me see if this helps- every time you post, I make a joke about your mom, yet you keep posting and do not get it- here it is...I'm your father!!!!! How stupid are you not to get that????? LMAO - Hilarious!!!! You are killing me!!!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!!
@moonlightbateman Whatever man - what I am having fun with is finding contact details to spread the word about you claiming a fake PhD. Rose know you're fucking around on her?
Sam Harris is an atheist evangelical. He is trying to spread his religion of atheism around and convert people. It is atheism in its vilest form.
ProtestantsRUs 2 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs Do you seriously think atheism is a religion?
bosgoedz 2 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs He's just promoting reason. Atheism is not a belief system, it's the lack of belief in gods. I assume you don't believe in Voodoo right? Are you part of the religion called "Avoodooism"? No, you aren't convinced by Voodoo (Aka Vodou). The same is true of atheists. He promotes skeptical thinking and if you think skeptically you will most likely drop your religious assumptions.
JarethGT 1 month ago
@ProtestantsRUs First off, atheism isn't a religion, if you think that, you're an idiot. Sam Harris isn't trying to convert anyone to anything. He is trying to destroy religion by pointing out how harmful to the progression of our species it is.
JaysLogic 1 month ago
@ProtestantsRUs There is nothing religious about not believing there is a god.
Mister187um 2 weeks ago
godless = a good thing
unamaxify 2 months ago 3
@GenRipper No true Christian is antisemitic. Hatred toward any people group is clearly anti-Christian. A so-called Christian who hates Jews is also mentally lacking, since Jesus, Christianity's founder, was a Jew.
benfaust 2 months ago
@benfaust Guess you missed the parts about killing witches, beating children so on and so on.
dffykvn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about either. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 yet, look, here we all are. the chances of you being born at all (or me) were also fantastically small, yet, again, here we are. doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred. the simple truth is, yes, everything has fantastically little chance of occurring, yet it does. maybe something supernatural makes it all happen. at this point, there is no reason to believe that is true.
isaachaze1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mogley52 yet, look, here we all are. the chances of you being born at all (or me) were also fantastically small, yet, again, here we are. doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred. the simple truth is, yes, everything has fantastically little chance of occurring, yet it does. maybe something supernatural makes it all happen. at this point, there is no reason to believe that is true.
isaachaze1 4 months ago
@Mogley52 yet, look, here we all are. the chances of you being born at all (or me) were also fantastically small, yet, again, here we are. doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred. the simple truth is, yes, everything has fantastically little chance of occurring, yet it does. maybe something supernatural makes it all happen. at this point, there is no reason to believe that is true.
isaachaze1 4 months ago
@Mogley52 that all changes in an open universally large space with infinite time. its the monkey banging on a typerwriter theory.. given enough time you can put together a masterpeice from his random button smashing.. if amino acids formed and had an infinite amount of time to work things out, it can form protein and a cell, yes without the right sequuence it wont work, but when it has an infinite amount of time to bounce around, sooner or later it fits, so on and so on.
raztis1 3 months ago
@raztis1 If you give a creationist a keyboard and an infinite amount of time, they STILL wouldn't be able to come up with an argument that didn't involve magic.
dffykvn 2 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
@Mogley52 there are rooms full of evidence proving that we evolved from the ape family. r u trying to prove creationism by talking facts? because i would love to hear about your rooms full of evidence and 98% of scientists that back creationism.. especially since the amount of evidence of creation could fill my palm with room for a burger. the process of evolution is fact, only quacks try and disprove it anymore. the "theory" is there only for the direction, not the process.
raztis1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
You are too radical not to believe anything. Atheist is a very poor description of who you are. You just hate truth. Ordered functions that most of the most common elements have in life forms according to a preexisting word require having a Maker of the universe who is also the only One who is able to Make us. That's what the evidence is. Our Maker is the One who stretched out the fabric of time and space so hydrogen and other elements would be working parts inside of us.
watch?v=lEledPONpkQ
JungleJargon 5 months ago
Comment removed
GhostlyRebellion 5 months ago
@JungleJargon hmm that is a bunch a junglejargon indeed.
robocock100 5 months ago
@robocock100 It is JungleJargon that you were unable to address or respond to.
If you had a response, I am sure you would have responded to the issues.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon right, now what do you say to a person who assumes everything they've been told as a child is true and never scrutinizes their own belief system? you should be appalled at your willful display of ignorance. Atheists don't believe in anything? Hate truth? WTF are you talking about? Your video is flooded with science literate critics and rightly so. FYI, you'd be super rich if you could disprove evolution. Put down your holy book, read something else & earn that money bitch.
robocock100 4 months ago
@robocock100 Evolution and atheism has been disproved many times by many other people.
You just don't know about it yet.
Dawkins is afraid to debate a Creationist because he knows he has no chance of winning the debate.
Everyone else who is an evolutionist/atheist has lost all of their debates.
How do you know whether or not I have changed or not changed any of my beliefs?
You don't know what you are talking about.
You are not saying anything to convince me one way or another.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon enlighten me.
robocock100 4 months ago
@JungleJargon yeah, id like to know what evidence that proves Atheism and evolution wrong
Multimorten 4 months ago
@JungleJargon "You are not saying anything to convince me one way or another." - the definition of close-mindedness. You just disqualified yourself from further debate.
CommitToFocus 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon "You are not saying anything to convince me one way or another." - the definition of close-mindedness. You just disqualified yourself from further debate.
CommitToFocus 4 months ago
The biggest problem with atheists is that they think they are so smart. If you're a true intellectual free thinking maverick then face the reality of several points; A there isn't a shred of evidence of the big bang, it's simply the only option for atheists, and B there isn't a single evolutionary link of the billions of fossils discovered, it's all there in black and white.
HelloWerldLawl 5 months ago
@HelloWerldLawl A small point - both of those theories were derived from the evidence. You don't start with an idea, develop a theory, and THEN go and try and find the evidence. The Big Bang and evolution were both derived from the evidence we observe. To say there is no evidence for either is a simple way of saying "I haven't studied either of them".
Also, atheism isn't anything to do with either of those theories - it is the lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
Penfold011082 5 months ago
@HelloWerldLawl Well you obviously haven't done any research, and are an ignorant, unintelligent person.
domclarke92 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 6 months ago
"God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them"...Bono
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secularist social perspective
shieldsff 6 months ago
Author: Dr. Bernard Haisch, The God Theory "A remarkable discovery has gradually emerged in astrophysics over the past two decades and is now essentially undisputed: that certain key physical constants have just the right values to make life possible", Sir Martin Rees, the British Astronomer Royal and one of the foremost cosmologists writes: “Our emergence and survival depend on very special ‘tuning’ of the cosmos --- a cosmos that may be vaster than the universe that we can actually see.”
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
Max Planck, father of quantam mechanics "I can tell you as a result of my research; There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness"
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
Dr Marc Kirschner, chairman of the Department of Biology, Harvard Medical School, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers."
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
This website also gives an overview on spirituality's mixing with QM: polyticks(.(com/psi/novella.htm
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf Of course the counter to your website, can be found at Reasons to Believe, the integration of Science and Faith simply google;.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics for a great article debunking your claim:) The internet rocks!
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that “ The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where Christianity is exploding."
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
The fact that omnipotence in itself is a paradox and, for example, the judeo-christian god IS said to omnipotent, means it does not exist at least in this dimension. If it exists in another dimension, I ask once more- show me evidence of it effecting this world. If you cannot, once more, as I said in the beginning of the debate, this can be used to prove the existance of everything.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf Review the Quantum Activist. You will see that the only paradoxes come from the mistaken belief in a "ground up" version of causation. A downward causation offers no paradoxes . Clearly the behavior of electrons and photons independant of space/time is ample evidence that matter is affected by outside forces. Existance is consciousness, as evidence you can look to quantum physics and the predetermined laws that govern existance. Materialism, the basis of atheism, is disproven.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman Actually, no. Downward causation causes more paradoxes not just in QM (since it assumes a boatload of things), it causes paradoxes in physics-type sciences.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
An omnipresent being, God, would and does exist in all dimensions, thus no paradox. From Christianity-Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" and "In my father's house there are many mansions". Feel free to look it up. BTW This is less of a debate and more of a lecture:)
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman This IS a debate. A bit of a useless one (I learned, then learned what I learned was wrong, but at least I learned that its wrong now. :p). How could god exist in anything below the 7th dimension (the dimension where people have debated that that is where any deity would be able to exist)? Its impossible, it would have trouble going through the dimensions. If god or gods existed, they would exist in the 7th dimension, and travel downwards (in the dimension line).
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf God exists in all dimensions and all dimensions exist within God. I think that clears up your argument. BTW Thank you for admitting other dimensions exist, by doing so you have moved on from materialistic atheism. Looks like you changed you mind afterall:)
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that “ The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman However, we lack the evidence of having something that shows omnipotency or omnipresent (sp?) in our world, let alone something that distinguishes it from all other gods- it could be any god. It could just be the fact that there are more complex beings or just plainly different beings/things/inserthere effecting our dimension. On Amit- no one stated that there is no free will (I actually think there isn't). And again, in this world causal power is an illusion to us
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf because, obviously, our senses can trick us- that does not mean it actually happens. We are just unsure of it, but again, that can be fixed for the most part with proper experimenting. Again, blah however we can reduce the chance of having a "hallucination" with having multiple/large amount of people observing with us/reduce the chance of having faulty information. I'd buy the book or movie but I can't, to know more info on it.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf Nice try, but if you are positing a "more complex being" then you are admitting that you believe beings more complex than humans exist. Care to explain that being using atheism as a basis? BTW, You also admitted that the Aspire experiment showed that materialist science has no explanation for how 2 photons communicate non-locally (over distance). But you admit it happens. Care to try explaining that using atheistic materilism?
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman Haven't seen enough and don't have a Ph.D in the matter but it makes sense, for the most part. Other people with the same knowledge as said professor have rejected it, not basing it off of that though (makes me look out for mistakes). Anyway- complex being as in WE are a 4th dimensional being. We would be way more complex compared to a 1st, or 2nd dimension being. A being from the 5th or above dimensions would. Boom. No need to say "its god" or "goddidit."
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf God did it or "Nuthin dun it". The choice is pretty clear. "Nuthin dun it" ( atheism) is illogical, irrational and has been proven impossible. Yet staunch atheists hold on to a disproven and debunked idea, why? I suspect they (and you) cant find God for the same reason a crook cant find a policeman. So you posit things like "space aliens" or "little green men" LOL, in fact any answer will do, except one (God). Good without God is o.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman I think its pretty much impossible to know 100% who "didit", let alone a being that was thought up by humans. At least with the other options, you could see evidence left by it to see and be like "Oh, it was probably X, most likely". And once more, nice attacks. I can see the longer I can keep disproving your stuff the more you get back to ad hom-like crap. god backwards is dog, man.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf No ad hom at all, just showing that when you asked for evidence, it was provided. Your response was to try to ignore the evidence or attack the sources of evidence rather than deal with the evidence. The only logical conclusion to draw from that is that you will not accept any evidence counter to your worldview, especially when that evidence disproves your worldview.It is not that you believe God does not exist, you do not want God to exist. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf Or it could be that God is everything that is, was or will be. Eternal. Since the exidence obviously points toward a creator God and away from an accidental or random existance as posited by materialistic atheism. Even the most die hard atheist has to admit that now that materialism has been proven wrong. Science proved it wrong, along with the eternal universe (we know it had a begining), constant universe (it is expanding) and other tenants of atheistic materialism. Sorry.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman Far from it. It hasn't even changed my views (nor does it effect them). It actually worsens your views- the chance of your god "existing" is the same as every other deity made up by humans, and not counting those by other extraterrestrials. You've got to be kidding me when the thing that separates us between a stereotypical god is its omnipotence (presence, knowledge, etc). That in itself is a paradox. A being like that cannot exist.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@luyben12 Nice appeal to majority. I'm sorry, but, once more, you can prove ANY god with the fact that you connect with them spiritually- and whatever happened to its omnipotence? It can affect the physical world, can it not?. Nothing but physical evidence will convince me.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf Want evidence from science? The Alain Aspire experiments, 1982. A substantial number of post materialist scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness instead of matter,Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D,Nuclear Physicist- University of Oregon, shares a new perspective within science of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being. Google "The Quantum Activist "or read "God is not dead" for more information supporting God.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman I didn't bother to use the "well, other scientists say that he's using a strawman to base his theory on", although that SHOULD be a worry for you. First off- the statement that outer forces can effect this universe (as in other dimensions). There's 3 normal dimensions and 1 temporal dimension (the 3-dimensional figures, and time). Assuming that others exist, such as the other 7, there's a chance of the above stages to possibly effect our dimension(but we can't interact w/ them)
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf The fact that we can extract information based on thier existance (photon and electron behavior) seems like a pretty solid case that you are wrong about dimensions, we can and do interact with them:). So now that you have been confronted with evidence from the scientific community that contradicts materialistic atheism (which you admitted in print exists), the question is...What are you gonna do about it?
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman Continue to devil's advocate. :p Anyway, you do know this evidence can be used to prove anything's existance, since we do not know what is in other (higher) dimensions?
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf But, we know (higher) dimensions exist. Which means science has proven materialistic atheism incorrect and impossible. To continue on believing something that has been disproven is irrational and illogical. Now that you know materialistic atheism is impossible- What are you gonna do about it?
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@moonlightbateman I don't see how other dimensions = disproves materialism. Science would've dropped the materialistic view by now if that was true. Seeing as its a bit dumb to go on with this debate without using everything at my disposal, I looked over the essays/pages that criticize Amit's claims. Instead of writing a shitload of work here, I'll paste the main site with the majority of rebutals (you can skip the last bit/section): peterblloyd(.)org/essays/goswami.htm
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@TomRaphaelWolf Rebuttals do not change the fact that in experiment after ezperiment- starting with Aspire in 1982, all of the evidence shows that the material universe is not all that there is. When you couple that with the fact that materialism is loosing mainstream followers at an alarming rate, you are forced to look the facts in the eye. Atheism is irrational, illogical and scientifically impossible. Why cling to a disproven worldview , ypu have already admitted you were wrong. Move on.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
Atheists tend to have higher rates of obesity (see video as evidence), depression, suicide, isolation, mental illness, health difficulties, substance abuse, and tend to be quarrelsome, angry white men (see video as evidence). Atheists do not marry, produce offspring or live as long. Atheism is not considered sexually attractive by most females. Some ( "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazine) support the idea atheism may be a form of Aspergers Syndrome holding at 2.3% of the population
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@luyben12 Atheism is not on the rise. Atheists have been holding at 2.3% of ther population for a long, long time (Encyclopedia Brittanica).BTW I think you confused my post with the other guy's.
moonlightbateman 6 months ago
@luyben12 Pretty good. No evidence shown yet, but at least you're not as bad as moonlight.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@luyben12 I can prove ANYTHING with that kind of defense, you know. Anything. Take unicorns for example- the fact that humanity has come up with such "fictional" beings is because they exist, otherwise we wouldn't have brought them up. Be more convincing, person who is more intelligent than I.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
To the (douche-bag) theists in below posts, tell me any piece evidence that can be shown to all and tested accordingly that supports the existance of the judeo-christian god. Note- this cannot be evidence that can be used to support any other deity's existance.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@luyben12 It's equally pompous and ignorant to say that you know otherwise without actually testing it in an objective manner! Medical mysteries? The human body sometimes calls it quits under an injury that shouldn't lead to death, and sometimes the body can sustain much, much more injuries, no need to say goddidit. NDE's? Do you really believe in those? You CAN indirectly disprove gods exist, though. Just look at one main trait for every and all gods- to be omnipotent. A huge paradox.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@luyben12 You can prove any deity like that.
TomRaphaelWolf 6 months ago
@luyben12 no, prove your point please. how is an atheist position not 'intellectual'. kindly explain to me. and im a 20 year old woman. idiot
unlikelyatheist 6 months ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 6 months ago
@luyben12 goldfish can't hold intellectual positions dumbass
unlikelyatheist 6 months ago
Oh PZ and Sam , when will you stop all of this bombastic hate filled rhetoric. Seriously, Meyers, Harris, Dawkins and Dennet are some of the most low key, measured people I’ve seen especially when compared to anyone on TBN. Hitch is another story and I love him for it!
AdUtrumquePeratus76 7 months ago
I'm an "atheist," as well as a non-astrologer, a non-creationist, a non-9/11-truther, etc, but I don't feel the need to call myself these things. Atheism is a stupid bloody label because it's fucking inadequate (but I kind of like it at the same time). I'd rather call myself a Secular Humanist, but I'd much rather not call myself anything.
I'm with Sam: I just want to demolish bad ideas wherever I find them, and not fumble with stupid bloody labels along the way.
theocean1973 8 months ago 2
@theocean1973 I live in the American south, otherwise known as the bible belt, and im an atheist(if were talking labels). Can you imagine how confused everyone down here would be if i told them im a secular humanist. Half the people in Georgia couldnt even pronounce secular humanist. They are already confused enough, i dont think a game of linguistics would work for me.
I agree with you, its silly that i would have to even label myself a non fairy tale believer
MrKGatl 7 months ago
I like his way of going about it, but every so often someone has to try your patience... but then, you could always walk away.
omnigear1975 9 months ago
so these are comments made by atheists huh? well BIG suprise. yall are depraved, foul, and ignorant
EYEthatwatchestheEYE 9 months ago
I am a strong Christian, but I also believe strongly about respect for each others beliefs. I love this guy he so humble and though he is an Atheist I admire this man, thanks for the upload, reminds me know that not all Atheist have the same personality... Thanks..
samuellis 10 months ago
@samuellis --Any Christian that admires any atheist is no Christian.
WayOfTheMaster454 10 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 And your just an idiot for disrespecting people, just because we have different beliefs we can't respect each other? No one is deluded but you... =)
samuellis 10 months ago
@samuellis --I think you're forgetting what the whole Neo-Atheist movement is about: Its about HATING your faith, and just because you admire some atheist it does not mean they will hate your "delusions" any less.
WayOfTheMaster454 10 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 Well you gotta have faith even if you are an Atheist, you have faith that what your believing is true, you trust that it's true. Sigh it's haters like you who create problems of mankind, not religion...
samuellis 10 months ago
@samuellis --you must be episcopal or UCC to be this liberal.
WayOfTheMaster454 10 months ago
@samuellis That's absolute nonsense. Religious people tend to make this argument to validate faith. Atheism is not the belief in anything, but a lack of belief. We don't have faith that any supernatural being or world exist simply no one has prove that. As far as religion not creating problem, are you serious? A simple look at the three prominent monotheistic faith. All three have specific ways of worship and punishment for those who don't do everything god's way. God specifically condone
petion2010 9 months ago
@petion2010 I'm trying really hard to look at your point your giving but it doesnt make sense to me. Sure I understand you lack belief in what I do and I lack belief in what you believe, but you believe it's true so it has to be a belief. There has been lot of things in history regaurding religion, but I look at it as us being human we do it if we believe it's right. There are only a handful of religion out there to command murder, beliefs are inferior when matched up with someone elses belief
samuellis 9 months ago
@samuellis genocide, religious intolerance, slavery, sexism, segregation, racism, rape etc. God has specific commandment how to massacre entire population including women and children, how to sell your daughter as sex slave, how to execute rape victim and a host of disgusting behaviors. Yeah, religious people tend to pick and chose, and point out the "good stuff" in their holy holy books while ignoring the superstition, errors, contradiction and downright stupidities.
petion2010 9 months ago
@petion2010 Now I'm only going to talk about my Religion I don't speak for others. I see there are many things you don't know, I was an Atheist for many years you really think I would become a Christian if I didn't believe all those were to happen without a purpose? What does Atheism have to offer the world or to any individual person for that matter...
samuellis 9 months ago
@samuellis
Atheism offers just as much as theism: nothing. It's the totality of your beliefs that matter, not just whether you believe in a god or not. If you want atheism to offer something you can delude yourself. You have done so with theism already so why not?
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree Funny that you mention that Atheism has nothing to offer I totally agree. But Christianity has more to offer than you think I believe. It gives people morals, hope, faith in believing something exist besides there asolutely nothing, eternity , ultimate justice, etc... Much to say... You can be a great person believing in something else, that is something I respect a lot...
samuellis 9 months ago
@samuellis
"morals"
If you need religion to be moral, you weren't moral to begin with and won't ever be.
For the rest, just be who you want to be and have a good life.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@Quintinohthree I knew you were going to quote that out when I wrote it, sorry for the misunderstanding I didnt have anymore characters to write lol. Well everyone has morals I'm just saying bibical morals that we follow as Christians no one else does. Another thing is that I believe morals to be objective I've argued plenty of times about morals being subjective but no solid arguements. But anyone can be morally good,Religion plays a role because there are set morals when believing in something
samuellis 9 months ago
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman I'm an atheist and I'm not unpleasant or quarrelsome. Half the people I hang out with/work with and my best buddy I've known for 20 odd years are religious and we get along just fine.
That sounds like a ridiculous book. Some of the most depressing unpleasant people I've ever met were Christians but because of that I don't go around thinking every Christian has a mental disease. Do you even know what Aspergers Syndrome is? It's not exactly the same as autism.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sk8tafrnk You just proved that you are unpleasant "That sounds like a ridiculous book" and quarrelsome "Do you even know what Aspergers Syndrome is?" and that you do not understand Aspergers Syndrome.... Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum. Strike three and you are out!! Since you are wrong about those 3 things, what else are you wrong about? Here's a clue...God!
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk "That sounds like a ridiculous book"- rude, "Some of the most depressing unpleasant people I've ever met were Christians" - unpleasant, "Do you even know what Aspergers Syndrome is?"- argumentative. I think you just proved the point. 3 strikes and you are out!
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman Yeah man, good work.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Thanks again:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman If the title of your book is literally based on the title, it's ridiculous. How is that rude? Grow some skin.
I said I've met unpleasant Christians as an example to refute your point. There are pleasant people and unpleasant people, some are atheist and some are Christians.
Third of all, no credible psychologist has ever found any correlation between Asperger's and atheism. The fact you made that comparison led me to the assumption you didn't know what the condition was.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk " it's ridiculous. How is that rude?" - rude and argumentative,"Grow some skin"-unpleasant.3 more strikes:) You keep making the point for me everytime you post. Thank you.
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman If people can't openly disagree about issues then how are humans supposed to discuss them and come to agreements or compromises on them? All people have different needs so in order to get along we have to communicate.
If you're phased by rudeness then how can you be comfortable enough to question what you think and test it for logical soundness?
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Here's your problem- after 6 instances of rude, argumentative and unpleasant comments and a lengthy defense of those comments, no one cares what you think. You did this to yourself. In the future, a more polite, respectful and courteous response would have served you better, and I would have responded in kind. I'm afraid this is an example of too little, too late on your part... sorry. Chalk it up as a lesson learned.
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman What a loss.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman Take debate class in an accredited university. Judging by your temperament a respectful debate would probably reduce you to a pile of mush.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Rude (Take a debate class), argumentative (Judging by your temprament) and unpleasant.(reduce you to a pile of mush)..again- 3 strikes and your out, 3 outs retires the side- Thanks again, you just proved my point for me:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman Disagreeing with someone's viewpoint isn't rude. I'm not judging your personal moral character, that would be rude.
I'm not really convinced you're for real anyway.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk "Disagreeing with someones viewpoint"- argumentative, "I'm not really convinced you're for real anyway"- rude and unpleasant. You just cant help yourself can you? Everytime you post you prove my point. Thanks again!
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman If the point you're trying to prove is that only atheists are argumentative, rude and unpleasant... then do you think everyone is an atheist?
P.s. How do you have a conversation with anyone?
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Do you actually believe that the only way to communicate is by being argumentative, rude and unpleasant? if so, then you have not only proven my point about atheists, but you are an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about. Thanks again:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman So the particular way I was engaging a debate on a youtube comment board alone defines the way every atheist is in every other aspect of life?
Using the same method you did I could make up anything I wanted, sift through comments, and "prove it." Any logical person with enough brains cells to have a valuable opinion wouldn't use that method to prove something. You prove that to avoid providing more evidence for you viewpoint, you say I'm rude. It's called a red herring.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Nope, just pointing out that you are rude, argumentative and unpleasant- a perfect example of my original point:) You did all the work for me, and you continue to do so:) Thanks again!
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman I've had Christians confront me very rudely, unpleasantly, and start trying to argue with me even though we agreed on the same issue on youtube and real life situations when they don't even know I'm an atheist most of the time.
So using moonlightbateman's scientific method I determine that Christians are rude, argumentative and unpleasant also.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Actually that was Wired Magazine and Vox Day, author of the the book "The Irrational Atheist" (I'll repost the original comment for you) that that made the observation, you just provided a great example-yourself. Keep up the good work:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman I read the book. It's terrible. There's not a single logically relevant argument in the book (I read it because you can download it for free), and anyone who believe he has written an effective argument is a disgrace to the human kind. For one it's filled with cheap insults which is hypocritical at best.
Generally 99% of people are perfectly intelligent people, so I hope you realize that the 1% of idiots who are going to take your point seriously don't really worry me.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk "It's terrible"- unpleasant, "the 1% of idiots who are going to take your point seriously don't really worry me"- rude and argumentative. You just keep making the point of the book. You are an excellent example of "The Irrational Atheist" and why it is accurate. Thanks for providing another great set of examples:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman You're a bot.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman If I read a book that is supported by no logical means why would I say anything positive about it?
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Why would you say anything at all?
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman Because if I suggested a book for someone to read I'd be curious as to their honest opinion about it.
You are opposed to human communication on the most basic platform.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Nope- just rude, unpleasant and argumentative communication like you practice:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman Whatever the Hell you're talking about, you can't even bring up the slightest disagreement.
All my friends (are Christian by the way) would be mad if I disagreed with something they were believing and didn't bring it up. Study sociology. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with what you believe then you don't even deserve to be incorporated into human society. Nothing I've said has been outwardly rude. I haven't said anything that ran even close to your personal character.
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk I have a degree in Sociology from the University of New York:) I have proven rgar your comments are rude, unpleasant and argumentative time and time again, The fact that you are arguing over whether or not you are argumentative only proves you wrong...again:)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman I talk to 100's of people on youtube about the same types of things I started talking to you about and nobody said I was rude. So apparently 99% of mankind has a more human expectation for conversation than you do.
Plus, the only place I debate religion and whatnot is on youtube and that's it so the only thing you could potentially be proving is that atheists are argumentative on youtube. Degree in Sociology huh? High five (cough).
sk8tafrnk 10 months ago
@sk8tafrnk Still arguing that you are not argumentative? LOL (cough)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 Peter 2:12-14 "But these, like brute beast made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions.., having eyes full of adultery and cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls.They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children."
detroitthebaptist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BillKiernan
Fromanttodugong 10 months ago
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@BillKiernan Too funny, a drop out with diploma envy. LMAO!!!!
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
Read Vox Days' "The Irrational Atheist" and Wired Magazines observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged people with unpleasant personalities such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair. One could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Aspergers and atheism. Aspergers Syndrome (AS) is a neurobiological disorder on the autism spectrum (some even claim it is merely Autism)
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@BillKiernan For a laugh its Saint Luke Evengelical School - unacreddited of course but they are honest in proclaiming on their front page that their "degrees" are for "personal edification only" LOL
Fromanttodugong 10 months ago
@Fromanttodugong Letr me see if this helps- every time you post, I make a joke about your mom, yet you keep posting and do not get it- here it is...I'm your father!!!!! How stupid are you not to get that????? LMAO - Hilarious!!!! You are killing me!!!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!!
moonlightbateman 10 months ago
@moonlightbateman Whatever man - what I am having fun with is finding contact details to spread the word about you claiming a fake PhD. Rose know you're fucking around on her?
Fromanttodugong 10 months ago