This video is unhealthy for all viewers. I can't even recommend it to a Christian for support, if I wanted to... Totally worthless... Too many distortions to even address...
Is it still morally justifiable to torture, burn and hang witches and heretics?
Yes or no?
Guess what, even within religion morals are discussed based on individuals interpretations of texts, situations ect. and fluctuates wildly - even to the ridiculous arguing about what way is the right way to worship THE SAME GOD!
I wonder why that is...
Could it be peoples INDIVIDUAL views and intellect that actually determines what side of the argument they tend to lean towards?
Because we are animals we don't have morals? Even less intelligent animals than us have a more primitive sense of morality. Seriously, you're talking complete rubbish right now.
Science and philosophy DO account for universal concepts. So much in this video is factually wrong, i'm giving up on even watching it . .
The part where you spoke about how logic must be created baffles me. I literally cant think of a way to respond to that, as it makes so little sense to my small brain.
But on Human Dignity... I value human life over anything else. I cant tell you why I feel this way, or where it came from,its irrelevant.Whether god exists or not humans are valuable because I say they are.
I think the problem you have is you feel us humans cannot decide these things ourselves, where I say we can. no god needed
@markgg1 He's not saying you can't decide this for yourself. He's saying you have no intellectual basis for valuing human life. You cannot give a logical argument that eating other humans is *wrong.* It's like you said, humans are only valuable "because I say they are." But what if someone else says eating humans is not wrong, because they say it isn't wrong? Without God's authority, you can't legitimately argue that person is wrong. It's just your opinion.
Nature is uniform yes but that doesnt prove god exists, it just proves nature is uniform.
I think you have some things wrong here though. Knowing the next solar eclipse is not an example of the uniformity of nature, as an event could change that e.g. a alien spaceship blowing up earth... you should have instead stated the fact that the laws of physics are fixed. This is an example of 'uniformoty' of nature' as you put it.
So because I can't see into the future, i cannot define what good is? Who you trying to kid me, or yourself. Evolution a fact mate! facts don't cease to exist because you're an ignoramus.
Narrow indeed. We have found the world to be uniform and logic deals with it. Anything that is logical is anything self-evident and consistent with observations. It is our fruitful attempt to make sense of this world. Cause and effect. It is because that world is uniform that we use such uniformity as a basis for understanding the nature of uniformity. So I don't see how this proves or disproves an omnipotent being. Am I honestly missing something here?
Logic is essentially assumptions based off of evidence. In of itself it is a concept that has been created, yes, by the human though process, as a way of working with our own understandings.
That in mind, Logic is NEVER fully developed. Our logical capabilities and reasoning change with the evidence we accrue. To summarize, Logic is a tool of human understanding, much like numbers are a tool of human quantifying. They are abstract, yes, but even other animals understand simplistic quantity.
@Cosmicluck we do not force you to have religion. We compel you with words to have one but we dont force you. Its true that some force religion upon others but that doesnt go with our scripture. The gospel is supposed to win you heart through love not to subdue it by force. That said everyone has a god( something we idolize). For some its money for others it sports, celebrities, statesmen, and etc. SO everyone has religion in a way.
Now for the last time, Atheism doesn't teach anything, evolution is evolution, not atheism. Evolution is actually quite flattering, we weren't just created by the whim if some god, we earned our place and survived all sorts of conditions. you're last argument is just nonsense, humans are humans, not cows, and we value humans more highly.
we can prove things like thermodynamics, they are true, and they do not need to have been created. If you say they must of been created, then god must have been as well, and you cannot say he's eternal and they can't be because that's special pleading. Although I agree, things such as logical absolutes and thermodynamics are not contingent upon the human mind.
@logicalmind4 how do you know thermodynamics is not created. you dont you are just claiming it and putting it up as a postulate. you cant prove it. Secondly it will nor be special pleading if we assume God is eternal and thermodynamics is not because the idea of a GOD is an omnipotent, ominiescent, eternal creator. If he has not eternity then he is not GOD but rather an idol. If you say GOD exisists then you are saying that everything else is created by him.
I'm not saying thermodynamics is necessarily not created, I'm saying there's no justification for assuming so. I said "they do not need to have been created." And yes it is special pleading if you say thermodynamics cannot be eternal but god can. Everything you said about god can be said about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Omnipotence cannot exist. The Boulder argument utterly disproves the possibility. All power must have a quantity. It cannot be infinite.
Further, there's nothing that you plead for God in his eternal existence that cannot logically be applied to the universe itself, thus using Occham's razor to cut out the question of God entirely. If God can be eternal and not need a creator, why can't the Universe? Once this is postulated your argument becomes null.
@Jinxerz010792 The universe is material, governed by natural laws, expanding, exploding, decaying. The origin of the cosmos singularity requires a reason and an intelligence which both are lacking with the Big Bang theory. A spiritual being is not limited by such things, it doesn't decay, grow old, explode, expand and is not bound by natural laws.
Okay, first of all, justify your assumption as to why it needs reason and intelligence. Second, if such spiritual beings exist, where is your proof of their existence. And I don't want "The universe is proof" because it's quite frankly not. There's nothing to show that any spiritual being has affected the material world at all, in any way, so I'd like to know where you get the idea for beings that somehow work outside the laws that govern all of existence.
cont...them is such that they might contradict quantum mechanics. Have you ever heard of Schroedinger's cat? the whole point is that it is alive and dead at the same time. Electrons can be in a state of being in many places at once. Regardless of whether Schroedinger's cat is true or not, you still misrepresent logical absolutes. the point is that the cat is the way that it is, whatever state it is in, and it is not the way that it is not. And also, you presuppose god. The difference is.....cont
cont...universal, you're just wrong. Science regularly deals with these laws, that's how thermodynamics came about. You cannot deny that thermodynamics is very much part of science and you also cannot deny that it is immaterial, universal, and not conceptual. Even if it didn't, so what. Atheism is not a thing that has to account for them, logical absolutes prove logical absolutes, there is no contradiction with atheism there. You also don't understand logical absolutes, the way you put......cont
What? I can't actually see any point he makes regarding uniformity of nature. And just to clarify, Atheistic world view does not have any set rules or beliefs, it is not necessary for an atheist to think the universe is in a state of change or to accept evolution. And to your points there, so what? how does it in any way defeat atheism? We essentially are the sum of many chemical reactions, that's why we are able to throw some chemicals together and create life. concerning laws that are....cont
Point 1. The bible is immoral. Besides some nice stories, it also has horrific and sickening stories, with god drowning woman and children, god destroying whole towns, god turning people to salt, also slavery, incest, rape and genocide.
2. Pastors preach about the nice bible stories, because their intrinstic social morals allowed them to cherry pick bible stories that fit their morality.
3. Not knowing how laws of nature work is NOT proof of god. Not knowing DOES NOT equal knowing
@Futureplanet you do not seem to understand the biblical standing on morality and justice. Lets start with a simple scenario if hilter was found wouldnt you want him to face the death penalty. Or if someone kills somebody you know or does some sin to you wouldnt you want that person to face retribution in the hands of the law. SO if someone tresspasses earthly laws and faces penalties how much more should one face for tresspassing Gods laws. and also if GOD exists then death isn't the end.
Actually science doesn't just study uniformity, there is such a thing known as entropy which is (I think) one of the most interesting properties of our universe, and the second law of thermodynamics. It's effects are constantly being studied.
Science isn't a 'god' - it is a method or tool to measure the world and determine facts. The religious concept of God is based on faith not fact. The rest of this is illogical.
Theist: How do you explain logic? Where does it come from?
Atheist: We obviously don't need to nor claim to. Just as we don't need to or claim to know how the universe came into existence. All that matters is we both agree on the standard axioms of logic so that a debate can take place in the first place, which I'm sure we both do. Thank you. Next question.
Get a life, wanna be religious? keep it to yourself, and stop trying and pretending to know the mind of god..that you have moral superiority about the rest of the planet, if you think christianity is the real deal, why not Budism,? or Islam? or then all religions are placebos...
It seems as though the person who made this video hasn't actually paid attention to arguments from the other side... Every point made in this video has already been countered.
I don't think it's fair to say that an atheist believes that tomorrow will be different from today. Everyone believes that tomorrow will be different from today. It is Friday, tomorrow is Saturday. Today there is rain, tomorrow, sun and cloud. There will be no hockey game for me to watch on saturday. I will have pizza today, and maybe tomorrow, too, I haven't decided. The world is in a state of constant flux, you just need to be smart enough to see the fluctuations.
There are still some lost tribes in jungles. They have never heard of God and yet they dont come across as very scientific.
Uniformity of Nature - Factually wrong. Fisrt, its the THEORY of gravity and not the Law, secondly, gravity is higher at the top end of your toothbrush than the bottom. Time also ticks slower at the top of your brush than the bottom. Also, an Earth day is lengthened or shortened by the effect the wind has on the mountains as well as the sea.
Society or the individual dictates morality. Case in Hitler, the society of the planet decided it wasn't a good idea, so we went to war and won. As far as Chritian morality, it didn't keep them from entertaining slavery, genocide on indians, (killed more than Hitler killed jews) and what about the Crusades?
Morality changes all the time, it has since the beginning of man, it is not the same as it was 2000 years ago because our morality has evolved; to something better? NO, something different.
I'm not an atheist, I think that for people to gather and protest against God is just stupid. You can't logically prove that God doesn't exist because we have yet to define him. Although I would not call myself a believer either.
Further more, the guy who narrated this is an idiot. Concepts and natural laws do exist, otherwise there would be no science, or anything else for that matter.
Science is the god of atheists? I don't remember praying to science. I've never damned someone to sciencehell. And I don't have a What Would Science Do? keychain that I have to consult when I have a moral dilemma. I don't get together with my science buddies and sing songs and chant about how great science is so that I don't have to think about its flaws.
get an education. evolution doesn't state whales turn into dinosaurs. whales came later. they are mammals. that diagram you posted is of a dog's distant relative turning into a whale. so your argument=failed education. lmfao
I'm an atheist and even I know science is imperfect. I don't think anything is perfect, therefore nothing is God - as long as we define God as the perfect thing.
The video says an atheist defines good as that which achieves.... good.
That's ridiculous.
"Good" is that which a person perceives will cause the least amount of harm. Harm is that which causes a reduction in perceived value of a thing, concept, or idea.
For the theist, they perceive that accurate belief in God will cause the least amount of harm.
Therefore theists even follow this simple principle. And the principle says nothing about God at all.
Yes we're able to see the future - we wait for it. Hence we're able to see consequences, we are able to judge past societies and codes.
So shall we go with the morals of the Bible?
Punishing people for the behaviour of others, genocide, killing people for holding different beliefs, enslaving conquered civilians, rape as a spoil of war, husband to rule the wife.
And Christianity has the most blood-stained record of any religion.
This video is fucked. Claiming people can't have ethics without religion is complete and utter nonsense. Sweden is mostly atheist and they have lower crime rates than we do in the U.S. they are also happier than us and one of the richest countries in the world all without believing in a sky daddy. This video also clearly doesn't take into account horrors like the crusades, holocaust, slavery, and geneocide that was caused or fueled by religion.
Yes Athiesm can be defeated and it has. Atheism is the BELIEF in the non-existance of God. Theism is the belief in a God. One is right & one is wrong. All the theists needs is one peice of evidence to prove Gods existance & the Athiest is defeated.The atheist needs all the knowlege of the universe to prove the non-existance of God. Therefore the Athiest CAN be defeated!
No you proved nothing of the bible. By your own standards you have no right to say wheather Gods actions are evil or not. God gives free will, and by their own free will they rejected to obey God. Lets look at it this way: Lets say u believe in Heaven & Hell. Wouldn't it actually be kind of God to take out the children early to be w/ him in heaven or rather let them grow up as their fathers did dieing in their sins and spending an enternity in hell?
"By your own standards you have no right to say wheather Gods actions are evil or not." - yes you do. the only standards you can use to judge anything are your own. thats like saying i have no right to call hitler evil because im using my own standards, if i use hitlers standards then hitler isn't evil!
This video does not make too much sense. Atheism is not a religion and as such has no laws or dogmas. Thus every atheist can have his own arguments and thoughts and the fact that some of them are wrong does not mean that atheism is defeated. This means that defeating atheism is impossible because there is nothing to be defeated.
but that is the point! theres no universal law. whatever you say is wrong or right...i could very well disagree with you..and it never ends. that is chaos.
That's why we have laws (which change). It's not about whether we agree or not. In actual fact we agree on many things. I think it's wrong to kill or steal and so do you. It's quite simple if you think about it - don't do to others what you would not like done to yourself!!!
How can you pre-suppose what Manson did was wrong if there is no set standard of morals? Who's to say what he did was wrong"? Shoulnt u just say what he did was "different"? If there is a moral law, there has to be a moral law giver, period! A Godless view cant accout for morality. could u explain to me where u get ur morals?
Manson was schizophrenic. That means he did not have the faculty to know that what he was doing was wrong. So while society has to protect itself from people like him, in actual fact he was not guilty (in order to be guilty there has to be intent and intent demands understanding)
We cant use the arguement "because bad things happen in the world, therefore God cant exist" b/c then I have the right to say "because good things happen then God must exist." Therefore that point is mute. I dont dissagree that Manson, durring his mass murdering, didnt feel his killing as wrong. But at SOME point in his life he KNEW it was wrong to kill. A mans heart can be hardened if he continually rejects his God given conscience. This goes hand in hand with the bible, no problem.....
Id like 2 answer your question 1st about God killing the Egyption's babys. First understand that God DOES NOT contradict himself. The bible goes against abortion but kills egyption babies? You have to understand the context of the story. God didnt just kill babies. He sent warning after warning to Pharaoh to let his people go but he refused. The egyptions were evil & did not listen. God is the creator of life, & therefore he's just to take ANY life that he gives. cont....
But you believe God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect love so this does not make sense. Let's take all knowing first - if he was all knowing why would he wait for them to listen.....surely he knew they would not - duh??? Being all powerful he could have convinced them by whatever means, and how does the fact that they were "evil" justify killing their babies?? If you can't see the nonsense I give up. This does not prove God does not exist but it proves beyond doubt that the bible is a lie
"Christians dont have an innate sence of right and wrong like the rest of us do"
God's Law is in EVERY man's heart. People like Jeffrey Domer do or did have a conscience but he chose to go against his God given gift til his heart was hardend. But he actually did understand his wrong doings and Repented to God.
Someone like Charles Manson clearly believes and has stated many times that he does not believe he has ever done a wrong thing. If god puts his law in every man's heart, did he forget about Charles Manson? Or did he purposely not give Charles Manson a conscience and thereby cause the murders he ordered? Either way, god epic failed when making Charles Manson.
I agree that you dont have to read the bible to be a moral person. This completely Makes the Bible even more true when it states that God's law is on EVERY man's heart, Which is the most logical explaination for the HUMAN conscience. In this sence Atheism is defeated. God Bless you brother Gene!. Keep doing what you're doin' my friend. Preaching the Law & the Gospel. Repent & Trust the savior
MRK- Defeat atheism, of course. It has NOTHING to do with God (sarcasm). But this debate has degenereated into a food topic, which was my point that you missed by a mile..
As far as morals. That´s irony. Since ´religious morals´ (oxymoron) are what cause most of the atrocities in history, we´re better off without them.
Saying that God is the source of morality can be interpreted two ways:
Meaning 1: God instills his moral objectivity into each person.
Meaning 2. Christians use the Bible and God as a source of morals.
Problem with meaning 1: If God instills morals into each person does he purposefully not instill morality into people like Jeffrey Dahmer and thereby condemn them to Hell even before they have been born? Unfair.
Problem with meaning 2: If Christians only get their morals from the Bible...
...only subjective morality. We feel what he did was wrong, he obviously felt differently. Therefore you and I have different morals from Jeffrey Dahmer and most likely from each other.
...then truly they have no morals of their own. In other words, Christians don't have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong like the rest of us, they have to read the Bible to understand that concept. I don't believe that's true. After all, when one reads the Bible, one makes judgments as to whether or not he agrees. For instance, when you read the passage "Thou shalt not kill." You most likely think, "Yes, I agree that it is wrong to kill people." As do I. But that means...
...you have morals of your own outside of the Bible. And if you're going to say that you have morals God instilled in you, might I please direct you to the problem with meaning 1 that is if God instilled morals in you why did he not instill them in Jeffrey Dahmer and consequently CAUSE the deaths of his victims and CAUSE us to have to deal with the criminally insane. It's circular I know, because it is truly a ridiculous statement. I live by intrinsic morals. I feel bad if I do something...
There's plenty of basis to eat one thing and not the other. Eating meat contributes to global warming, deforestation, water depletion, world hunger and world poverty. Maybe if you'd get your head out of that ridiculous book and look at the world around you you'd realize these things and do something to make a difference instead of praying to a God who has done and will do nothing about anything because he does not exist!
My worldview can account for moral standard or obligation, but it doesn't have to. I live by what I know, I believe in things that are observably true. There are things that are still unknown, and that's okay. Simply saying "God did it" with no reason to believe in god other than "god can fill in all these things you can't answer." Well so could a unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster. There is no reason to believe in any of these things.
You can't generalize atheists like this because not all atheists share the exact same beliefs. It's not like a religion where there is a prescribed doctrine shared by all. I don't eat cows for lunch. I don't eat meat. I am an atheist. I cringe when Jeffrey Dommer eats other human beings. I cringe when you eat pigs.
...I feel is wrong, so I don't do wrong things. If morals were objective, you and I would agree that God was wrong to kill Egyptian babies. As it is, morals are not objective, they are subjective. I feel that it is wrong for anyone to kill babies, Christians believe it is wrong for people to kill babies, but if God wants to kill babies, it's okay. Jeffrey Dahmer should have had the morals that most of the world has, but he did not. The fact that people like him exist proves there is...
The fact that we have different morals concerning god inflicting genocide proves that morals are not objective! If they were objective we would all have the same morals! Clearly we do not. You are trying to tell me that it's morally acceptable for god to kill Egyptian babies. I disagree. If morals were objective we would agree on this issue.
What's so unbelievable about humans being part of the biological kingdom? Don't you think it's kind of conceited to think that it's impossible that we are too good or too smart or too perfect to have come from something less evolved?
firstly preachers are preaching thats why they explain their beliefs and the great comission of Christ was when he told his believers to spread the gospel through out the world so yes we have to
Nature was not necessarily "created". I can postulate that nature has always existed. If u think this suggestion is silly then u should realize that you're making the same claim about God, that he "has always existed." The difference is that my suggestion is far more plausible. The God hypothesis proposes not only that something "has always existed" but that it also has an intelligence. That demands a HUGE explanation, & nobody has provided one. Give me a scientific explanation and i'll listen.
" Nature was not necessarily "created" Yes it was .. Plausibility is not truth . As for Gods eternal existence ..If you can't grasp it ..so what ..you were never meant to . God's reality is beyond your comprehension .. How dare you think you can define him ..such arrogance
reading the bible shows god incapable of even writing a book that doesnt contradict itself. the bible is obviously the rantings of ignorant desert people
@seabrain a postualte is Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. so if u consider God a postulate then he is assumed without proof as being self-evident. You can not say show me God when you know that you can not reach him through science. Because he is a postulate he is a basic idea(in your view) whose mystery can not be fathomed through human wisdom(in my view). So in the end death reveals the truth.
@seabrain Most if not all modern scientific theories I'm aware of point to a singularity of the cosmos derived from an explosion aka (big bang). Nature must have a beginning because it decays, expands, and is governed by natural laws which all had an origin. Can you provide insight on how a spiritual being (not governed by entropy) can age or needs a beginning? Comparing the creation to the creator is faulty logic when the creator is not bound by material or physical laws.
@seabrain lmao. More plausible? According to what? Youtube atheists?
No mainstream cosmologist accepts that the universe has always existed. Based on mathematical reasoning and recent observations it is now widely accepted that the universe had a beginning. I suggest you study your science a bit more...
@Prolific85... i HAVE studied my science, Prolific. You say that cosmologists don't accept that that the universe has always existed? Are you kidding? Ever heard of physicists like Brian Green? Dr. Michiu Kaku? Richard Carrier? They ALL suggest this, based on the most RECENT findings and their empirical observations that have contributed to string theory, M-theory and MODERN, RECENT observations of the physics. So tell me, WHICH scientists are arguing that "nothing" existed before the Big Bang?
@seabrain While these guys may be great scientists these are really errors in Philosophy. Something can not arise from nothing. To say that the universe was born out of other dimensions or early quantum fluctuations is just to say that something created something. But non-being--that is, no properties whatsoever--logically can not create being. That is a logical contradiction. The reason most of these scientists don't recognize this is they are educated in their field and not philosophy.
@Prolific85 My argument was not that "something came out of nothing." It's the complete opposite, actually. My argument is that there is scientific evidence that suggests that the Big Bang was NOT the beginning, and that there was matter and energy BEFORE the Big Bang, that the matter and energy emerging from it may have come from another universe. This is not based on my own speculation, it's based on the most RECENT discoveries in science according to Greene, Smolins, Hawking and others.
@seabrain You're just avoiding admitting the obvious. Whether you want to say there was one bang or a multitude of bangs, it's M-theory, string theory or something else, my point still stands that there was a beginning of time and matter itself (which nearly all scientists accept and if they don't then they are making an error in philosophy). The atheist or the scientific naturalist is still left with the problem of how non-being creates being.
@Prolific85, "Nearly all scientists" accept that there had to be a beginning? Which ones? If you don't give me any names you don't have much of a case. Logic doesnt necessarily dictate that there had to be a beginning, and the quantum world often defies conventional logical thinking anyway. I'm "left with the problem of how non-being creates being"? No, YOU are. You're claiming that God created something out of nothing, and you guys still haven't explained how that happens :P
@seabrain WLC mentions some in his video on the KCA which he specializes in. One was Roger Penrose I believe and Paul Davies to name a few. I figured that in order to avoid being wrong that you would just say logic is invalid which is totally asinine. This arguing is getting silly at this point. Aristotle's five causes can explain how God brought the universe into existence. There are many interpretations to quantum physics. I've answered your questions this discussion is done. Get a brain.
@Prolific85 I said logic was invalid? When did I ever say that? I suggested that quantum mechanics is often counter-intuitive, especially when it comes to concepts like time and space. You mentioned Penrose and Davies - okay, so what specifically are they saying that supports your argument that there had to be a beginning? You haven't done that yet. Also you have not refuted my reference to Smolins and Hawkins and their evidence concerning black holes and multiple big bangs...
@seabrain I'm not going to debate it anymore. I've answered your questions and you just keep going on and on with more. You want to find answers, look for them. I did and I found them. Your questions are very typical atheistic objections that have been answered many times over...you will find them if you just look.
@Prolific85 Oh, I have looked... ironically, looking is what made me become an atheist. Looking and researching for myself - it made me realize that science can explain all phenomena of nature, including reasons why people become religious. Cheers ;)
@Prolific85 Also, telling me to "get a brain" doesn't support your argument in any logical way, nor does it prove any of your points - it's just an insult. it doesn't actually mean anything :P
@Prolific85 Also, you may want to look up Lee Smolin's fecund theory of the universe. Google it. He's a RECENT & highly praised physicists who has shown evidence of not just one Big Bang but the universe having many big bangs, and that ours was just one in a series. The collision of particles and atoms at the center of black holes are mathematically similar (and sometimes exactly alike) to those of the exact moment of our Big Bang. That's evidence that the Big Bang emerged from a black hole.
Consider this. Has the Earth always existed? Has humans always existed? Universe is supposedly expanding. What was the distance between 2 galaxies billions of years ago? Do you deny big bang? It is more difficult to say the nature has always existed. Saying the nature had the beginning is far more plausible.
@grasuh - your first 2 questions, 'has the earth always existed' and 'have humans always existed' just shows me that you don't understand cosmological history and physics, nor do you understand evolution. And no I don't deny the Big Bang, but I do question whether it was the absolute "beginning". You have not mentioned the names of any scientists or any scientific publication. Give me some names and sources and then I'll take you more seriously.
Your response just shows me that you don't understand cosmological history and physics, nor do you understand evolution. You have not mentioned the names of any scientists or any scientific publication proving the nature has always existed. Give me some names and sources and then I'll take you more seriously.
@grasuh Yes, actually I have referenced notable and reputable physicists who specialize in this field and show evidence of a possible fecund universe (one that contains multiple big bangs and not just one). Scroll down and look at my earlier comments.
For the record, living with the morals of a god gave us slavery, no rights for women, homophobia, the destruction of scientific advancement for the entire dark ages etc etc. My obsolete way of secularist thinking is the reason you are here. Your ancestors would prob have died before reproducing if we still lived in the superstitious world of the gods.
firstly God gave us a way out of slavery Read the old testiment, and the old testiment slaves were not to be beaten or treated poorly but were like current day farm workers given food shelter and little pay but the needs of their lives were taken care of, the rest of your statement has no basis
Were not to be beaten to death !! Beaten yes, but you could not knock their eyes out and as long as they died after three days you were fine. What does it say about release of those slaves and the keeping of their families. Women must obey their man masters because of a talking snake incident. Fuck me its barbaric and stupid. He could of had Jesus say something like wash your hands before eating and NEVER own another human and improved the book ten fold. Demons indeed, grow up.
It matters not, they are still considering to be property of another human. You are simply making excuses, and rationalizes the disgusting contents of your "holy" book.
What a complete load of rubbish. Religion is bronze age as it encompasses the mood of the times which is fear of gods and demons and other superstitious shit. Yes there were people who were atheist then, just as now you have people living with stupid ideas yet most (in my country at least) have moved on. Adaptation is not micro evolution. All evolution is driven by adaptation, and there is no difference between micro and macro, just time. You need to go read some proper books.
The mood of the times? So what about the Naturalistic Atheists? Did they have that mood, too? And while we're describing the "mood of the times", I'd much rather live under the morals of a God than live with the relativistic, unsteady, selfishly degenerate mood of modern nihilistic, secularistic, atheistic Man. Your mood is the obsolete one. It's the one that has failed time and again. Empires have fallen because they embraceed your style of selfish depravity. That's not something I want to join
No they were ahead of there times. The morals of a god ?? Are you for real mate. Have you not read the rag they call the bible? Would you not agree that the morals we live by, the ones we use to form our laws and the human rights we now are afforded are far and above better than the ones the Jewish god uses or condones. My mood is not obsolete. This mood is the fastest growing world view out there (well among educated nations) and means we no longer look to myths for guidance.
"they are man made... upon the physical brain." what "atheist" accounts for anything with that dumbass statement? how can a religious person say that atheism (a dumb word but w/e) being unable to account for something makes it an idiotic belief, and then turn around and worship a god, they can't account for? prove where his is, that'd be accounting for him. prove what he has done. that'd be accounting for him. you can't beat someone down with a stick that hits you just as hard.
Yes, I agree, his argument has holes. But the key difference is, religions accept things on Faith. Most atheists claim that everything must be scientifically proven a fact before they will believe it. The irony here is that science can never "prove" anything. Ultimately there is no scientific truth, just "what we currently think to be so".
no... science can prove things to be absolute. the 4 natural forces are absolute (although not constantly significant). the laws of gravity are absolute. etc. there is no mandate that something must be proven to be believed. that's proven by some believing that there's only a universe (one verse) and some believe in a multiverse (many universes). neither are proven fully and belief differs. what is mandatory is that for something to be believed it must be probable, supported, and rational.
Probable, supported, and rational. I am glad to hear this. It gives me hope that perhaps the hypothesis of Evolution won't survive much longer, because the more we learn, the less probable, the less supported, and the less rational this belief in snot crawling from a primordial ooze and turning into life forms that slowly genetically improve themselves without outside influence or technology becomes. You have given me hope. Thankyou, friend.
lemme break this into 2 parts so expect 2 responses. first part is your misunderstanding between evolution and abiogenesis. evo. is the process by which a live form changes in response to its environment. abio. is the theory on the origin of life which is not yet fully proven although there is a strong theory available. you said evolution when you meant abiogenesis. gratz. two different sciences.
"slowly genetically... technology" that whole bit. you got the first 2 words correct then failed. improve? not necessarily. evolution can occur without improvement. plants evolved green coloration not because it benefited them but because taking chlorophyll(which is green) did. green was part of the package. outside influence is the main point. poor evolution doesn't propagate because it is just that. poor. which is decided from the enviro. outside. artificial select. can also involve tech.
The more we learn the less probable ??? Where have you been learning lol Creationist fools have been trying in vain to prove this theory wrong for over 150 years, and have done nothing to dent its ability to constantly explain the diversity of life.
Munro1Man, I keep forgetting that the average person these days is only shown a small portion of the facts. It really is unfair of me to assume you know much at all about Evolution as you've been given nothing but the dolled up facade they teach in schools. Nobody told you that over 95% of the fossil record contradicts Evolution, did they? Or that our amino acids are more similar to yeast than any simian species?
Rubbish. Creationist propaganda is what you have been reading. The fossil record shows the story of evolution quite well and in no way ever contradicts the theory. Your lack of physics is evident in your magnetic field statement. I study physics and biology and your just way off there. Where did you hear such drivel?
Okay, smart guy, riddle me this: if the fossil record is such strong support for Evolution, then why do we find the SAME species of certain shell fish and other sea creatures in EVERY strata of rock? Wouldn't they have evolved, too? Or are they the odd exception that goes on for millions of years without evolving? Or the fact that sometimes we find MODERN species amongst Mesozoic or Cambrian strata? We can each call the other's books "propaganda" and nothing gets solved. The facts are on my side
Thats easy. If you are already very well adapted to your environment then any change would potentially be harmful. Therefore the ones that show the least change would be the ones who survive to reproduce, passing on their genes which would in turn build an animal that looked the same. That's why some animals are called living fossils. You need to read more.
And I'm sure they never told you that earth's magnetic field is almost certainly only about 6,000 - 12,000 years old, with an upward maximum age of 20,000 years. In otherwords, life on earth could not have existed more than 20,000 years ago. Plus, considering the moon's distance from the earth, and the rate it is departing, it would have collided with the earth about 1.5 billion years ago, which totally trashes Evolution, as that requires multiple billions of years.
And let me close by explaining to you that there has been very little real evidence, and absolutely no proof, that has ever been discovered to support Evolution on the macro-scale. Only the micro-scale (which is more accurately called Adaptation). Your theory is every bit as unproven as the Mormon Church's fictional Nephite civilization in Mexico. But just like the Mormon Church, your scientists lie to you and tell you there is proof when there is none.
god can't observe the future. everything to him is present because memory is always in the present even when looking at the past. get your own omniscient idiocy right. yes, we are part of the biological world. we eat, we live, we die, we fertilize plants with our bodies, those grow, others eat, it goes on and on. we have meaning because we give ourselves meaning by deciding to do things we believe in.
kukulza, what gives you the right to define Omniscience? How can you say God can't observe the future? God knows the future, son. Deal with it. Your argument made absolutely no sense. So don't go calling Omniscience "idiocy" when you can't even make a sensible argument.
the cow argument is stupid. all living things feed off of some other living thing on earth, the difference is that cows aren't the same species as us. do you see cows eating other cows?
and yes. we are just a bunch of things who live for no real reason.
so make the best of your life and stop wasting it on pointless videos, I suggest.
If we were just a bunch of things who live for no real reason then why do we have the ability to achieve thing such as technology. And instead of advising to stop wasting their time with pointless videos, why don't you stop wasting your time watching "the pointless" videos.
wow, this is starting to get harmful to listen to - the logic is so flawed, and the amount of unsubstantiable assumptions made on the behalf of 'atheists' or 'atheism' is agrecious!
The theist way of thinking: 1. What we perceive is, in some form, reality. 2. Science is how things work in it. 3. Our understanding of science constantly changes. 4. ??? 5. God exists. You assum (you do that a lot) that all atheists are solipsists. No. We do account for the intagible things in life. Logic is intangible, we use it. You use it (to some extent). No atheist I know asserts, "logic is a reality." There is something horribly wrong with that claim. Learn. Philosophy. Please.
H- Even in the animal kingdom, killing and/or eating animals of the same species is taboo. You dont see pirhanas eating each other in a feeding frenzy.
Also, cows aren't the same species as us. Nice Try.
Utter nonsense on Concepts. Typical strawman effort. Nothing indicates existence of such a thing as a god. However, this has nothing to do with the discussion of universal laws of logic. Blaming a god and pretending that solves things is simply cheating philosophically.
Video had me interested until the uniformity of nature argument, where he throws out the observable tendencies. I haven't seen the future, but I've seen thousands of days past, and every single one is proceeded by one resembling the last (with eventual changes). For anyone interested in this sort of thing, I'd suggest trying the debate between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, and Reza Aslan vs. Sam Harris, or any of the other hundreds of conversations on youtube.
then y don't u call us scientologists if science is our god, is it because that name is already taken? oh, and y are we made up of atoms if we're sooooooo special then? oh and we don't presuppose theories for the hell of it, we do it b/c we can test and observe them so technically it isn't presupposition. oh, and though we r just another animal, other animals who do exist eat other animals. does that surprise u? so dont call the cow a brother because it isn't even of the same species.
Wait, how did we get to shapeshifting dolphins and dinosaurs?
I think you're mixing up "our understanding of the universe from a scientific point of view" with "how the universe actually functions". Whether you believe in a god or not is irrelevant. Your personal understanding of the universe includes a god, my personal understanding of the universe does not. The universe exists as it always has, regardless.
If there is no beginning or end, then there cant be a present. So another way to put is we existed even before we were born and we exist even after we die. Hmm! Dont mind me guys Im just thinking outloud. I dont have the answers.
No past, no present, no future. Hmm! We've never existed before, we wont exist in the future, we dont exist in the present. We just.....uh EXIST, and thats it. So there is a beginning and end to life no doubt, but not eternity. I mean it wont make any sense to say eternity began or ends, whatever. Its all complicated, God is just too complicated. LOL!
HMM! Now I am confused. I slept thru most of my biology class, so thats why. I thought mamals evolved from sea animals. Now, how come some mamals, like the whale, evolved back to a sea animal from a land animal? Isn't that more like revolving?
ha perhaps. but evolution has no direction it's just survival of an organism wherever and whatever it takes. while a mammal branch did go back to the ocean they are still far from fish. They cant breathe underwater and they have very mammalian bone str
This is just my opinion:
This video is unhealthy for all viewers. I can't even recommend it to a Christian for support, if I wanted to... Totally worthless... Too many distortions to even address...
MyContext 5 months ago
@MyContext I understand... I missed the production name: "Narrow Mind Production" - It must have been a joke...really bad one...
MyContext 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question:
Is it still morally justifiable to torture, burn and hang witches and heretics?
Yes or no?
Guess what, even within religion morals are discussed based on individuals interpretations of texts, situations ect. and fluctuates wildly - even to the ridiculous arguing about what way is the right way to worship THE SAME GOD!
I wonder why that is...
Could it be peoples INDIVIDUAL views and intellect that actually determines what side of the argument they tend to lean towards?
auritone 5 months ago
U:
The uniformity of nature doesn't even imply that a god exists, let alone serve as evidence for it.
2:15
Says who?
Because we are animals we don't have morals? Even less intelligent animals than us have a more primitive sense of morality. Seriously, you're talking complete rubbish right now.
Science and philosophy DO account for universal concepts. So much in this video is factually wrong, i'm giving up on even watching it . .
ThMrksman 7 months ago
There is no good or evil, only power.
.
StarWars
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Sounds more like Nietzsche
camilo101 7 months ago
What's wrong with you people (american christians) You want to defeat thinking ??
Aleksamson 9 months ago
The part where you spoke about how logic must be created baffles me. I literally cant think of a way to respond to that, as it makes so little sense to my small brain.
But on Human Dignity... I value human life over anything else. I cant tell you why I feel this way, or where it came from,its irrelevant.Whether god exists or not humans are valuable because I say they are.
I think the problem you have is you feel us humans cannot decide these things ourselves, where I say we can. no god needed
markgg1 10 months ago
@markgg1 He's not saying you can't decide this for yourself. He's saying you have no intellectual basis for valuing human life. You cannot give a logical argument that eating other humans is *wrong.* It's like you said, humans are only valuable "because I say they are." But what if someone else says eating humans is not wrong, because they say it isn't wrong? Without God's authority, you can't legitimately argue that person is wrong. It's just your opinion.
camilo101 7 months ago
Nature is uniform yes but that doesnt prove god exists, it just proves nature is uniform.
I think you have some things wrong here though. Knowing the next solar eclipse is not an example of the uniformity of nature, as an event could change that e.g. a alien spaceship blowing up earth... you should have instead stated the fact that the laws of physics are fixed. This is an example of 'uniformoty' of nature' as you put it.
markgg1 10 months ago
you couldnt fail harder if u tried
ultimategoobah 10 months ago
So because I can't see into the future, i cannot define what good is? Who you trying to kid me, or yourself. Evolution a fact mate! facts don't cease to exist because you're an ignoramus.
retortme 1 year ago
"Narrow mind production"
Narrow indeed. We have found the world to be uniform and logic deals with it. Anything that is logical is anything self-evident and consistent with observations. It is our fruitful attempt to make sense of this world. Cause and effect. It is because that world is uniform that we use such uniformity as a basis for understanding the nature of uniformity. So I don't see how this proves or disproves an omnipotent being. Am I honestly missing something here?
Achilles9924 1 year ago
Logic is essentially assumptions based off of evidence. In of itself it is a concept that has been created, yes, by the human though process, as a way of working with our own understandings.
That in mind, Logic is NEVER fully developed. Our logical capabilities and reasoning change with the evidence we accrue. To summarize, Logic is a tool of human understanding, much like numbers are a tool of human quantifying. They are abstract, yes, but even other animals understand simplistic quantity.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
@Cosmicluck we do not force you to have religion. We compel you with words to have one but we dont force you. Its true that some force religion upon others but that doesnt go with our scripture. The gospel is supposed to win you heart through love not to subdue it by force. That said everyone has a god( something we idolize). For some its money for others it sports, celebrities, statesmen, and etc. SO everyone has religion in a way.
yoyo4085 1 year ago
Really? I thought the Old Testament was pretty clear on Killing those who don't believe in Yaweh.
Deuteronomy 13:6-9
Yup. Pretty damn clear. I'm surprised there aren't a lot more Christian Stonings going on.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
Now for the last time, Atheism doesn't teach anything, evolution is evolution, not atheism. Evolution is actually quite flattering, we weren't just created by the whim if some god, we earned our place and survived all sorts of conditions. you're last argument is just nonsense, humans are humans, not cows, and we value humans more highly.
logicalmind4 1 year ago
we can prove things like thermodynamics, they are true, and they do not need to have been created. If you say they must of been created, then god must have been as well, and you cannot say he's eternal and they can't be because that's special pleading. Although I agree, things such as logical absolutes and thermodynamics are not contingent upon the human mind.
logicalmind4 1 year ago
@logicalmind4 how do you know thermodynamics is not created. you dont you are just claiming it and putting it up as a postulate. you cant prove it. Secondly it will nor be special pleading if we assume God is eternal and thermodynamics is not because the idea of a GOD is an omnipotent, ominiescent, eternal creator. If he has not eternity then he is not GOD but rather an idol. If you say GOD exisists then you are saying that everything else is created by him.
yoyo4085 1 year ago
@yoyo4085
I'm not saying thermodynamics is necessarily not created, I'm saying there's no justification for assuming so. I said "they do not need to have been created." And yes it is special pleading if you say thermodynamics cannot be eternal but god can. Everything you said about god can be said about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
logicalmind4 1 year ago
Omnipotence cannot exist. The Boulder argument utterly disproves the possibility. All power must have a quantity. It cannot be infinite.
Further, there's nothing that you plead for God in his eternal existence that cannot logically be applied to the universe itself, thus using Occham's razor to cut out the question of God entirely. If God can be eternal and not need a creator, why can't the Universe? Once this is postulated your argument becomes null.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
@Jinxerz010792 The universe is material, governed by natural laws, expanding, exploding, decaying. The origin of the cosmos singularity requires a reason and an intelligence which both are lacking with the Big Bang theory. A spiritual being is not limited by such things, it doesn't decay, grow old, explode, expand and is not bound by natural laws.
superbill2 1 year ago
Okay, first of all, justify your assumption as to why it needs reason and intelligence. Second, if such spiritual beings exist, where is your proof of their existence. And I don't want "The universe is proof" because it's quite frankly not. There's nothing to show that any spiritual being has affected the material world at all, in any way, so I'd like to know where you get the idea for beings that somehow work outside the laws that govern all of existence.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
cont...them is such that they might contradict quantum mechanics. Have you ever heard of Schroedinger's cat? the whole point is that it is alive and dead at the same time. Electrons can be in a state of being in many places at once. Regardless of whether Schroedinger's cat is true or not, you still misrepresent logical absolutes. the point is that the cat is the way that it is, whatever state it is in, and it is not the way that it is not. And also, you presuppose god. The difference is.....cont
logicalmind4 1 year ago
cont...universal, you're just wrong. Science regularly deals with these laws, that's how thermodynamics came about. You cannot deny that thermodynamics is very much part of science and you also cannot deny that it is immaterial, universal, and not conceptual. Even if it didn't, so what. Atheism is not a thing that has to account for them, logical absolutes prove logical absolutes, there is no contradiction with atheism there. You also don't understand logical absolutes, the way you put......cont
logicalmind4 1 year ago
What? I can't actually see any point he makes regarding uniformity of nature. And just to clarify, Atheistic world view does not have any set rules or beliefs, it is not necessary for an atheist to think the universe is in a state of change or to accept evolution. And to your points there, so what? how does it in any way defeat atheism? We essentially are the sum of many chemical reactions, that's why we are able to throw some chemicals together and create life. concerning laws that are....cont
logicalmind4 1 year ago
Point 1. The bible is immoral. Besides some nice stories, it also has horrific and sickening stories, with god drowning woman and children, god destroying whole towns, god turning people to salt, also slavery, incest, rape and genocide.
2. Pastors preach about the nice bible stories, because their intrinstic social morals allowed them to cherry pick bible stories that fit their morality.
3. Not knowing how laws of nature work is NOT proof of god. Not knowing DOES NOT equal knowing
Futureplanet 1 year ago
@Futureplanet you do not seem to understand the biblical standing on morality and justice. Lets start with a simple scenario if hilter was found wouldnt you want him to face the death penalty. Or if someone kills somebody you know or does some sin to you wouldnt you want that person to face retribution in the hands of the law. SO if someone tresspasses earthly laws and faces penalties how much more should one face for tresspassing Gods laws. and also if GOD exists then death isn't the end.
yoyo4085 1 year ago
Actually science doesn't just study uniformity, there is such a thing known as entropy which is (I think) one of the most interesting properties of our universe, and the second law of thermodynamics. It's effects are constantly being studied.
intercipio 1 year ago
Science isn't a 'god' - it is a method or tool to measure the world and determine facts. The religious concept of God is based on faith not fact. The rest of this is illogical.
portantwas 1 year ago
I'm sorry... But some of these arguments fall flat on their face....
tedmyster101 1 year ago
@tedmyster101 how???
yoyo4085 1 year ago
Theist: How do you explain logic? Where does it come from?
Atheist: We obviously don't need to nor claim to. Just as we don't need to or claim to know how the universe came into existence. All that matters is we both agree on the standard axioms of logic so that a debate can take place in the first place, which I'm sure we both do. Thank you. Next question.
harmonykrieg 1 year ago
Get a life, wanna be religious? keep it to yourself, and stop trying and pretending to know the mind of god..that you have moral superiority about the rest of the planet, if you think christianity is the real deal, why not Budism,? or Islam? or then all religions are placebos...
wlbeneath 1 year ago
It seems as though the person who made this video hasn't actually paid attention to arguments from the other side... Every point made in this video has already been countered.
mrgreyblake 1 year ago
I don't think it's fair to say that an atheist believes that tomorrow will be different from today. Everyone believes that tomorrow will be different from today. It is Friday, tomorrow is Saturday. Today there is rain, tomorrow, sun and cloud. There will be no hockey game for me to watch on saturday. I will have pizza today, and maybe tomorrow, too, I haven't decided. The world is in a state of constant flux, you just need to be smart enough to see the fluctuations.
KidMeatball 2 years ago
C My cat loves her laser pen.
Whenever it goes behind a chair and I quickly switch it off, she runs to the chair expecting it to be hiding behind it.
She creates a little scenario in her mind in order to anticipate the red dot's intentions.
Why is this an evolutionary advantage?
Because the predator that can outthink its prey gets to eat.
If you CANT think in an abstract way, then your thoughts would be pure instinct, which works for say, sharks, but we need something appropriate
manchester26m 2 years ago
There are still some lost tribes in jungles. They have never heard of God and yet they dont come across as very scientific.
Uniformity of Nature - Factually wrong. Fisrt, its the THEORY of gravity and not the Law, secondly, gravity is higher at the top end of your toothbrush than the bottom. Time also ticks slower at the top of your brush than the bottom. Also, an Earth day is lengthened or shortened by the effect the wind has on the mountains as well as the sea.
manchester26m 2 years ago
Society or the individual dictates morality. Case in Hitler, the society of the planet decided it wasn't a good idea, so we went to war and won. As far as Chritian morality, it didn't keep them from entertaining slavery, genocide on indians, (killed more than Hitler killed jews) and what about the Crusades?
Morality changes all the time, it has since the beginning of man, it is not the same as it was 2000 years ago because our morality has evolved; to something better? NO, something different.
jcammon1 2 years ago
I'm not an atheist, I think that for people to gather and protest against God is just stupid. You can't logically prove that God doesn't exist because we have yet to define him. Although I would not call myself a believer either.
Further more, the guy who narrated this is an idiot. Concepts and natural laws do exist, otherwise there would be no science, or anything else for that matter.
jcammon1 2 years ago
Science is the god of atheists? I don't remember praying to science. I've never damned someone to sciencehell. And I don't have a What Would Science Do? keychain that I have to consult when I have a moral dilemma. I don't get together with my science buddies and sing songs and chant about how great science is so that I don't have to think about its flaws.
For me, science is a tool, and I use it as such.
afsmist 2 years ago
get an education. evolution doesn't state whales turn into dinosaurs. whales came later. they are mammals. that diagram you posted is of a dog's distant relative turning into a whale. so your argument=failed education. lmfao
dafon808 2 years ago
And yeah, the God of atheism is not science.
That's just bunk.
I'm an atheist and even I know science is imperfect. I don't think anything is perfect, therefore nothing is God - as long as we define God as the perfect thing.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
The video says an atheist defines good as that which achieves.... good.
That's ridiculous.
"Good" is that which a person perceives will cause the least amount of harm. Harm is that which causes a reduction in perceived value of a thing, concept, or idea.
For the theist, they perceive that accurate belief in God will cause the least amount of harm.
Therefore theists even follow this simple principle. And the principle says nothing about God at all.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
"The God of Atheism is science"
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I just...
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
*leaves video*
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
Why would you judge God on the actions of man? That's like saying " because I ate a bad hamburger from McDonalds, I'm never eating food again!"
djvdiddy 2 years ago
No not at all. Judge God based on his own actions: Read the old testament.
He's one evil motherfucker. Killin' kids and torturing men and slaughtering animals and slavery and rape...
Hiddeknight0 2 years ago
This series continues nonsense.
Yes we're able to see the future - we wait for it. Hence we're able to see consequences, we are able to judge past societies and codes.
So shall we go with the morals of the Bible?
Punishing people for the behaviour of others, genocide, killing people for holding different beliefs, enslaving conquered civilians, rape as a spoil of war, husband to rule the wife.
And Christianity has the most blood-stained record of any religion.
BTW, atheism is a philosophy.
dbes02 2 years ago
This video is fucked. Claiming people can't have ethics without religion is complete and utter nonsense. Sweden is mostly atheist and they have lower crime rates than we do in the U.S. they are also happier than us and one of the richest countries in the world all without believing in a sky daddy. This video also clearly doesn't take into account horrors like the crusades, holocaust, slavery, and geneocide that was caused or fueled by religion.
cwa1984 2 years ago
You should call in on his radio and prove your point. Seriously.
MegaKIOSK 2 years ago
God is good!
djvdiddy 2 years ago
Yes Athiesm can be defeated and it has. Atheism is the BELIEF in the non-existance of God. Theism is the belief in a God. One is right & one is wrong. All the theists needs is one peice of evidence to prove Gods existance & the Athiest is defeated.The atheist needs all the knowlege of the universe to prove the non-existance of God. Therefore the Athiest CAN be defeated!
djvdiddy 2 years ago
No you proved nothing of the bible. By your own standards you have no right to say wheather Gods actions are evil or not. God gives free will, and by their own free will they rejected to obey God. Lets look at it this way: Lets say u believe in Heaven & Hell. Wouldn't it actually be kind of God to take out the children early to be w/ him in heaven or rather let them grow up as their fathers did dieing in their sins and spending an enternity in hell?
djvdiddy 2 years ago
"By your own standards you have no right to say wheather Gods actions are evil or not." - yes you do. the only standards you can use to judge anything are your own. thats like saying i have no right to call hitler evil because im using my own standards, if i use hitlers standards then hitler isn't evil!
errskin 2 years ago
That's a philosophy. It has nothing to do with science or anything.
donovanrules123123 2 years ago
and your statement is completely unrelated.
errskin 2 years ago
Ridicule is not an argument
donovanrules123123 2 years ago
i never said it was, why do you keep replying to things i never said?
errskin 2 years ago
soo sooo stupid -_-
the video that is
ThMrksman 2 years ago
This video does not make too much sense. Atheism is not a religion and as such has no laws or dogmas. Thus every atheist can have his own arguments and thoughts and the fact that some of them are wrong does not mean that atheism is defeated. This means that defeating atheism is impossible because there is nothing to be defeated.
D20018200 2 years ago
but that is the point! theres no universal law. whatever you say is wrong or right...i could very well disagree with you..and it never ends. that is chaos.
guitarista1988 2 years ago
That's why we have laws (which change). It's not about whether we agree or not. In actual fact we agree on many things. I think it's wrong to kill or steal and so do you. It's quite simple if you think about it - don't do to others what you would not like done to yourself!!!
D20018200 2 years ago
Atheism is a philosophy. So yes, it can be proved wrong. And yes, it is a religion if you go around saying its the truth,
donovanrules123123 2 years ago
How can you pre-suppose what Manson did was wrong if there is no set standard of morals? Who's to say what he did was wrong"? Shoulnt u just say what he did was "different"? If there is a moral law, there has to be a moral law giver, period! A Godless view cant accout for morality. could u explain to me where u get ur morals?
djvdiddy 2 years ago
Manson was schizophrenic. That means he did not have the faculty to know that what he was doing was wrong. So while society has to protect itself from people like him, in actual fact he was not guilty (in order to be guilty there has to be intent and intent demands understanding)
D20018200 2 years ago
We cant use the arguement "because bad things happen in the world, therefore God cant exist" b/c then I have the right to say "because good things happen then God must exist." Therefore that point is mute. I dont dissagree that Manson, durring his mass murdering, didnt feel his killing as wrong. But at SOME point in his life he KNEW it was wrong to kill. A mans heart can be hardened if he continually rejects his God given conscience. This goes hand in hand with the bible, no problem.....
djvdiddy 2 years ago
Id like 2 answer your question 1st about God killing the Egyption's babys. First understand that God DOES NOT contradict himself. The bible goes against abortion but kills egyption babies? You have to understand the context of the story. God didnt just kill babies. He sent warning after warning to Pharaoh to let his people go but he refused. The egyptions were evil & did not listen. God is the creator of life, & therefore he's just to take ANY life that he gives. cont....
djvdiddy 2 years ago
But you believe God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect love so this does not make sense. Let's take all knowing first - if he was all knowing why would he wait for them to listen.....surely he knew they would not - duh??? Being all powerful he could have convinced them by whatever means, and how does the fact that they were "evil" justify killing their babies?? If you can't see the nonsense I give up. This does not prove God does not exist but it proves beyond doubt that the bible is a lie
D20018200 2 years ago
watermelonygoodness made my point in stating:
"Christians dont have an innate sence of right and wrong like the rest of us do"
God's Law is in EVERY man's heart. People like Jeffrey Domer do or did have a conscience but he chose to go against his God given gift til his heart was hardend. But he actually did understand his wrong doings and Repented to God.
djvdiddy 2 years ago
Someone like Charles Manson clearly believes and has stated many times that he does not believe he has ever done a wrong thing. If god puts his law in every man's heart, did he forget about Charles Manson? Or did he purposely not give Charles Manson a conscience and thereby cause the murders he ordered? Either way, god epic failed when making Charles Manson.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
I agree that you dont have to read the bible to be a moral person. This completely Makes the Bible even more true when it states that God's law is on EVERY man's heart, Which is the most logical explaination for the HUMAN conscience. In this sence Atheism is defeated. God Bless you brother Gene!. Keep doing what you're doin' my friend. Preaching the Law & the Gospel. Repent & Trust the savior
djvdiddy 2 years ago
MRK- Defeat atheism, of course. It has NOTHING to do with God (sarcasm). But this debate has degenereated into a food topic, which was my point that you missed by a mile..
As far as morals. That´s irony. Since ´religious morals´ (oxymoron) are what cause most of the atrocities in history, we´re better off without them.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago
UNIFORMITY of nature indicates a COMMON origin of species (but you went back to the moral thing again, oops out of sequence).
C: logic being outside or inside the human brain comes nowhere near proving God. Deists care nothing about logic anyway.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago
That's still no basis to eat one thing and not the other.
Crimany.. give us ONE reason.. just scratch the surface.
I clearly see you don't care about logic when it comes to living by morals you have no basis for following.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Saying that God is the source of morality can be interpreted two ways:
Meaning 1: God instills his moral objectivity into each person.
Meaning 2. Christians use the Bible and God as a source of morals.
Problem with meaning 1: If God instills morals into each person does he purposefully not instill morality into people like Jeffrey Dahmer and thereby condemn them to Hell even before they have been born? Unfair.
Problem with meaning 2: If Christians only get their morals from the Bible...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
...only subjective morality. We feel what he did was wrong, he obviously felt differently. Therefore you and I have different morals from Jeffrey Dahmer and most likely from each other.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
...then truly they have no morals of their own. In other words, Christians don't have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong like the rest of us, they have to read the Bible to understand that concept. I don't believe that's true. After all, when one reads the Bible, one makes judgments as to whether or not he agrees. For instance, when you read the passage "Thou shalt not kill." You most likely think, "Yes, I agree that it is wrong to kill people." As do I. But that means...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
...you have morals of your own outside of the Bible. And if you're going to say that you have morals God instilled in you, might I please direct you to the problem with meaning 1 that is if God instilled morals in you why did he not instill them in Jeffrey Dahmer and consequently CAUSE the deaths of his victims and CAUSE us to have to deal with the criminally insane. It's circular I know, because it is truly a ridiculous statement. I live by intrinsic morals. I feel bad if I do something...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
There's plenty of basis to eat one thing and not the other. Eating meat contributes to global warming, deforestation, water depletion, world hunger and world poverty. Maybe if you'd get your head out of that ridiculous book and look at the world around you you'd realize these things and do something to make a difference instead of praying to a God who has done and will do nothing about anything because he does not exist!
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
If you need a spy in the sky with a carrot and stick to be moral than you have no inherent morals.
I´m sorry, I didn´t realize this was the food network. I thought you were trying to prove God.
oalemdemadrid 2 years ago
The video never said "proving God". It says "Atheism defeated".
Your worldview can't account for moral standard or obligation.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
My worldview can account for moral standard or obligation, but it doesn't have to. I live by what I know, I believe in things that are observably true. There are things that are still unknown, and that's okay. Simply saying "God did it" with no reason to believe in god other than "god can fill in all these things you can't answer." Well so could a unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster. There is no reason to believe in any of these things.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
You can't generalize atheists like this because not all atheists share the exact same beliefs. It's not like a religion where there is a prescribed doctrine shared by all. I don't eat cows for lunch. I don't eat meat. I am an atheist. I cringe when Jeffrey Dommer eats other human beings. I cringe when you eat pigs.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
You cringe at what Jeffrey Dahmer did yet still haven't given any account as to why he shouldn't.
Your basis for morality hasn't any leg to stand on.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
...I feel is wrong, so I don't do wrong things. If morals were objective, you and I would agree that God was wrong to kill Egyptian babies. As it is, morals are not objective, they are subjective. I feel that it is wrong for anyone to kill babies, Christians believe it is wrong for people to kill babies, but if God wants to kill babies, it's okay. Jeffrey Dahmer should have had the morals that most of the world has, but he did not. The fact that people like him exist proves there is...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Morals are either objective, or there is no basis for any law against any actions.
God is transcendent, yea He has the right to make judgement calls concerning His own creation. I'd think so.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The fact that we have different morals concerning god inflicting genocide proves that morals are not objective! If they were objective we would all have the same morals! Clearly we do not. You are trying to tell me that it's morally acceptable for god to kill Egyptian babies. I disagree. If morals were objective we would agree on this issue.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
What's so unbelievable about humans being part of the biological kingdom? Don't you think it's kind of conceited to think that it's impossible that we are too good or too smart or too perfect to have come from something less evolved?
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Matt Slick arguement. Terrible.
TBucker 2 years ago
firstly preachers are preaching thats why they explain their beliefs and the great comission of Christ was when he told his believers to spread the gospel through out the world so yes we have to
andrewmarcus91 2 years ago
Dear Mr. Strawman
Do you really believe what you saying?
TheLionOfMars 2 years ago
Science does not "depend" on the uniformity of nature. Science DESCRIBES the uniformity of nature.
seabrain 2 years ago 2
Yes , describes the uniformity of a nature created by whom ?
123strauss 2 years ago
Nature was not necessarily "created". I can postulate that nature has always existed. If u think this suggestion is silly then u should realize that you're making the same claim about God, that he "has always existed." The difference is that my suggestion is far more plausible. The God hypothesis proposes not only that something "has always existed" but that it also has an intelligence. That demands a HUGE explanation, & nobody has provided one. Give me a scientific explanation and i'll listen.
seabrain 2 years ago 14
" Nature was not necessarily "created" Yes it was .. Plausibility is not truth . As for Gods eternal existence ..If you can't grasp it ..so what ..you were never meant to . God's reality is beyond your comprehension .. How dare you think you can define him ..such arrogance
123strauss 2 years ago
reading the bible shows god incapable of even writing a book that doesnt contradict itself. the bible is obviously the rantings of ignorant desert people
rddaos 2 years ago
@seabrain a postualte is Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. so if u consider God a postulate then he is assumed without proof as being self-evident. You can not say show me God when you know that you can not reach him through science. Because he is a postulate he is a basic idea(in your view) whose mystery can not be fathomed through human wisdom(in my view). So in the end death reveals the truth.
yoyo4085 1 year ago
Exactly. Occham's Razor applied perfectly.
Jinxerz010792 1 year ago
@seabrain Most if not all modern scientific theories I'm aware of point to a singularity of the cosmos derived from an explosion aka (big bang). Nature must have a beginning because it decays, expands, and is governed by natural laws which all had an origin. Can you provide insight on how a spiritual being (not governed by entropy) can age or needs a beginning? Comparing the creation to the creator is faulty logic when the creator is not bound by material or physical laws.
superbill2 1 year ago
@seabrain lmao. More plausible? According to what? Youtube atheists?
No mainstream cosmologist accepts that the universe has always existed. Based on mathematical reasoning and recent observations it is now widely accepted that the universe had a beginning. I suggest you study your science a bit more...
Prolific85 1 year ago
@Prolific85... i HAVE studied my science, Prolific. You say that cosmologists don't accept that that the universe has always existed? Are you kidding? Ever heard of physicists like Brian Green? Dr. Michiu Kaku? Richard Carrier? They ALL suggest this, based on the most RECENT findings and their empirical observations that have contributed to string theory, M-theory and MODERN, RECENT observations of the physics. So tell me, WHICH scientists are arguing that "nothing" existed before the Big Bang?
seabrain 1 year ago
@seabrain While these guys may be great scientists these are really errors in Philosophy. Something can not arise from nothing. To say that the universe was born out of other dimensions or early quantum fluctuations is just to say that something created something. But non-being--that is, no properties whatsoever--logically can not create being. That is a logical contradiction. The reason most of these scientists don't recognize this is they are educated in their field and not philosophy.
Prolific85 1 year ago
@Prolific85 My argument was not that "something came out of nothing." It's the complete opposite, actually. My argument is that there is scientific evidence that suggests that the Big Bang was NOT the beginning, and that there was matter and energy BEFORE the Big Bang, that the matter and energy emerging from it may have come from another universe. This is not based on my own speculation, it's based on the most RECENT discoveries in science according to Greene, Smolins, Hawking and others.
seabrain 1 year ago
@seabrain You're just avoiding admitting the obvious. Whether you want to say there was one bang or a multitude of bangs, it's M-theory, string theory or something else, my point still stands that there was a beginning of time and matter itself (which nearly all scientists accept and if they don't then they are making an error in philosophy). The atheist or the scientific naturalist is still left with the problem of how non-being creates being.
Prolific85 1 year ago
@Prolific85, "Nearly all scientists" accept that there had to be a beginning? Which ones? If you don't give me any names you don't have much of a case. Logic doesnt necessarily dictate that there had to be a beginning, and the quantum world often defies conventional logical thinking anyway. I'm "left with the problem of how non-being creates being"? No, YOU are. You're claiming that God created something out of nothing, and you guys still haven't explained how that happens :P
seabrain 1 year ago
@seabrain WLC mentions some in his video on the KCA which he specializes in. One was Roger Penrose I believe and Paul Davies to name a few. I figured that in order to avoid being wrong that you would just say logic is invalid which is totally asinine. This arguing is getting silly at this point. Aristotle's five causes can explain how God brought the universe into existence. There are many interpretations to quantum physics. I've answered your questions this discussion is done. Get a brain.
Prolific85 1 year ago
@Prolific85 I said logic was invalid? When did I ever say that? I suggested that quantum mechanics is often counter-intuitive, especially when it comes to concepts like time and space. You mentioned Penrose and Davies - okay, so what specifically are they saying that supports your argument that there had to be a beginning? You haven't done that yet. Also you have not refuted my reference to Smolins and Hawkins and their evidence concerning black holes and multiple big bangs...
seabrain 1 year ago
@seabrain I'm not going to debate it anymore. I've answered your questions and you just keep going on and on with more. You want to find answers, look for them. I did and I found them. Your questions are very typical atheistic objections that have been answered many times over...you will find them if you just look.
Prolific85 1 year ago
@Prolific85 Oh, I have looked... ironically, looking is what made me become an atheist. Looking and researching for myself - it made me realize that science can explain all phenomena of nature, including reasons why people become religious. Cheers ;)
seabrain 1 year ago
@Prolific85 Also, telling me to "get a brain" doesn't support your argument in any logical way, nor does it prove any of your points - it's just an insult. it doesn't actually mean anything :P
seabrain 1 year ago
@Prolific85 Also, you may want to look up Lee Smolin's fecund theory of the universe. Google it. He's a RECENT & highly praised physicists who has shown evidence of not just one Big Bang but the universe having many big bangs, and that ours was just one in a series. The collision of particles and atoms at the center of black holes are mathematically similar (and sometimes exactly alike) to those of the exact moment of our Big Bang. That's evidence that the Big Bang emerged from a black hole.
seabrain 1 year ago
@seabrain
Consider this. Has the Earth always existed? Has humans always existed? Universe is supposedly expanding. What was the distance between 2 galaxies billions of years ago? Do you deny big bang? It is more difficult to say the nature has always existed. Saying the nature had the beginning is far more plausible.
grasuh 1 year ago
@grasuh - your first 2 questions, 'has the earth always existed' and 'have humans always existed' just shows me that you don't understand cosmological history and physics, nor do you understand evolution. And no I don't deny the Big Bang, but I do question whether it was the absolute "beginning". You have not mentioned the names of any scientists or any scientific publication. Give me some names and sources and then I'll take you more seriously.
seabrain 1 year ago
Comment removed
grasuh 1 year ago
@seabrain
Your response just shows me that you don't understand cosmological history and physics, nor do you understand evolution. You have not mentioned the names of any scientists or any scientific publication proving the nature has always existed. Give me some names and sources and then I'll take you more seriously.
grasuh 1 year ago
@grasuh Yes, actually I have referenced notable and reputable physicists who specialize in this field and show evidence of a possible fecund universe (one that contains multiple big bangs and not just one). Scroll down and look at my earlier comments.
seabrain 1 year ago
Created by WHAT, not by WHOM. start with that.
rddaos 2 years ago
For the record, living with the morals of a god gave us slavery, no rights for women, homophobia, the destruction of scientific advancement for the entire dark ages etc etc. My obsolete way of secularist thinking is the reason you are here. Your ancestors would prob have died before reproducing if we still lived in the superstitious world of the gods.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
firstly God gave us a way out of slavery Read the old testiment, and the old testiment slaves were not to be beaten or treated poorly but were like current day farm workers given food shelter and little pay but the needs of their lives were taken care of, the rest of your statement has no basis
andrewmarcus91 2 years ago
Were not to be beaten to death !! Beaten yes, but you could not knock their eyes out and as long as they died after three days you were fine. What does it say about release of those slaves and the keeping of their families. Women must obey their man masters because of a talking snake incident. Fuck me its barbaric and stupid. He could of had Jesus say something like wash your hands before eating and NEVER own another human and improved the book ten fold. Demons indeed, grow up.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
It matters not, they are still considering to be property of another human. You are simply making excuses, and rationalizes the disgusting contents of your "holy" book.
supermurder67 2 years ago
bible condones slavery. a very heinous book it is
rddaos 2 years ago
What a complete load of rubbish. Religion is bronze age as it encompasses the mood of the times which is fear of gods and demons and other superstitious shit. Yes there were people who were atheist then, just as now you have people living with stupid ideas yet most (in my country at least) have moved on. Adaptation is not micro evolution. All evolution is driven by adaptation, and there is no difference between micro and macro, just time. You need to go read some proper books.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
The mood of the times? So what about the Naturalistic Atheists? Did they have that mood, too? And while we're describing the "mood of the times", I'd much rather live under the morals of a God than live with the relativistic, unsteady, selfishly degenerate mood of modern nihilistic, secularistic, atheistic Man. Your mood is the obsolete one. It's the one that has failed time and again. Empires have fallen because they embraceed your style of selfish depravity. That's not something I want to join
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
No they were ahead of there times. The morals of a god ?? Are you for real mate. Have you not read the rag they call the bible? Would you not agree that the morals we live by, the ones we use to form our laws and the human rights we now are afforded are far and above better than the ones the Jewish god uses or condones. My mood is not obsolete. This mood is the fastest growing world view out there (well among educated nations) and means we no longer look to myths for guidance.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
"they are man made... upon the physical brain." what "atheist" accounts for anything with that dumbass statement? how can a religious person say that atheism (a dumb word but w/e) being unable to account for something makes it an idiotic belief, and then turn around and worship a god, they can't account for? prove where his is, that'd be accounting for him. prove what he has done. that'd be accounting for him. you can't beat someone down with a stick that hits you just as hard.
kukulza 2 years ago
Yes, I agree, his argument has holes. But the key difference is, religions accept things on Faith. Most atheists claim that everything must be scientifically proven a fact before they will believe it. The irony here is that science can never "prove" anything. Ultimately there is no scientific truth, just "what we currently think to be so".
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
no... science can prove things to be absolute. the 4 natural forces are absolute (although not constantly significant). the laws of gravity are absolute. etc. there is no mandate that something must be proven to be believed. that's proven by some believing that there's only a universe (one verse) and some believe in a multiverse (many universes). neither are proven fully and belief differs. what is mandatory is that for something to be believed it must be probable, supported, and rational.
kukulza 2 years ago
Probable, supported, and rational. I am glad to hear this. It gives me hope that perhaps the hypothesis of Evolution won't survive much longer, because the more we learn, the less probable, the less supported, and the less rational this belief in snot crawling from a primordial ooze and turning into life forms that slowly genetically improve themselves without outside influence or technology becomes. You have given me hope. Thankyou, friend.
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
lemme break this into 2 parts so expect 2 responses. first part is your misunderstanding between evolution and abiogenesis. evo. is the process by which a live form changes in response to its environment. abio. is the theory on the origin of life which is not yet fully proven although there is a strong theory available. you said evolution when you meant abiogenesis. gratz. two different sciences.
kukulza 2 years ago
"slowly genetically... technology" that whole bit. you got the first 2 words correct then failed. improve? not necessarily. evolution can occur without improvement. plants evolved green coloration not because it benefited them but because taking chlorophyll(which is green) did. green was part of the package. outside influence is the main point. poor evolution doesn't propagate because it is just that. poor. which is decided from the enviro. outside. artificial select. can also involve tech.
kukulza 2 years ago
You are misinformed about Evolution. Hopefully you can get your information from a non-biased source instead of your preacher.
adansuperman 2 years ago
The more we learn the less probable ??? Where have you been learning lol Creationist fools have been trying in vain to prove this theory wrong for over 150 years, and have done nothing to dent its ability to constantly explain the diversity of life.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
Munro1Man, I keep forgetting that the average person these days is only shown a small portion of the facts. It really is unfair of me to assume you know much at all about Evolution as you've been given nothing but the dolled up facade they teach in schools. Nobody told you that over 95% of the fossil record contradicts Evolution, did they? Or that our amino acids are more similar to yeast than any simian species?
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
Rubbish. Creationist propaganda is what you have been reading. The fossil record shows the story of evolution quite well and in no way ever contradicts the theory. Your lack of physics is evident in your magnetic field statement. I study physics and biology and your just way off there. Where did you hear such drivel?
Munro1Man 2 years ago
Okay, smart guy, riddle me this: if the fossil record is such strong support for Evolution, then why do we find the SAME species of certain shell fish and other sea creatures in EVERY strata of rock? Wouldn't they have evolved, too? Or are they the odd exception that goes on for millions of years without evolving? Or the fact that sometimes we find MODERN species amongst Mesozoic or Cambrian strata? We can each call the other's books "propaganda" and nothing gets solved. The facts are on my side
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
Thats easy. If you are already very well adapted to your environment then any change would potentially be harmful. Therefore the ones that show the least change would be the ones who survive to reproduce, passing on their genes which would in turn build an animal that looked the same. That's why some animals are called living fossils. You need to read more.
Munro1Man 2 years ago
And I'm sure they never told you that earth's magnetic field is almost certainly only about 6,000 - 12,000 years old, with an upward maximum age of 20,000 years. In otherwords, life on earth could not have existed more than 20,000 years ago. Plus, considering the moon's distance from the earth, and the rate it is departing, it would have collided with the earth about 1.5 billion years ago, which totally trashes Evolution, as that requires multiple billions of years.
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
And let me close by explaining to you that there has been very little real evidence, and absolutely no proof, that has ever been discovered to support Evolution on the macro-scale. Only the micro-scale (which is more accurately called Adaptation). Your theory is every bit as unproven as the Mormon Church's fictional Nephite civilization in Mexico. But just like the Mormon Church, your scientists lie to you and tell you there is proof when there is none.
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
god can't observe the future. everything to him is present because memory is always in the present even when looking at the past. get your own omniscient idiocy right. yes, we are part of the biological world. we eat, we live, we die, we fertilize plants with our bodies, those grow, others eat, it goes on and on. we have meaning because we give ourselves meaning by deciding to do things we believe in.
kukulza 2 years ago
kukulza, what gives you the right to define Omniscience? How can you say God can't observe the future? God knows the future, son. Deal with it. Your argument made absolutely no sense. So don't go calling Omniscience "idiocy" when you can't even make a sensible argument.
yeahbuddy2 2 years ago
the cow argument is stupid. all living things feed off of some other living thing on earth, the difference is that cows aren't the same species as us. do you see cows eating other cows?
and yes. we are just a bunch of things who live for no real reason.
so make the best of your life and stop wasting it on pointless videos, I suggest.
Metsodok 2 years ago
Ironically mad cow disease was an issue.
If we were just a bunch of things who live for no real reason then why do we have the ability to achieve thing such as technology. And instead of advising to stop wasting their time with pointless videos, why don't you stop wasting your time watching "the pointless" videos.
BFOwings 2 years ago
Whales, Barney the dinosaur, what the hell is this idiot talking about?
jroyals26 2 years ago
Believers don't need science because for one thing intelligence is elitist, and they have a magician.
JstNEarthling 2 years ago
wow, this is starting to get harmful to listen to - the logic is so flawed, and the amount of unsubstantiable assumptions made on the behalf of 'atheists' or 'atheism' is agrecious!
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
Your argument is so convoluted and porous it's like a twisty straw with holes poked in it!
invadercheeze 2 years ago
WNF 2 years ago
H- Even in the animal kingdom, killing and/or eating animals of the same species is taboo. You dont see pirhanas eating each other in a feeding frenzy.
Also, cows aren't the same species as us. Nice Try.
latiasneo3 2 years ago
Utter nonsense on Concepts. Typical strawman effort. Nothing indicates existence of such a thing as a god. However, this has nothing to do with the discussion of universal laws of logic. Blaming a god and pretending that solves things is simply cheating philosophically.
frilans 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
frilans 2 years ago
Still pointless on Moral since religious have nothing to offer in this area.
frilans 2 years ago 2
Video had me interested until the uniformity of nature argument, where he throws out the observable tendencies. I haven't seen the future, but I've seen thousands of days past, and every single one is proceeded by one resembling the last (with eventual changes). For anyone interested in this sort of thing, I'd suggest trying the debate between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, and Reza Aslan vs. Sam Harris, or any of the other hundreds of conversations on youtube.
Boognish64 2 years ago
good grief
my head hurts trying to find even a grain of sense in any of this
acefreedi 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
acefreedi 2 years ago
Good = any thought, action or inaction that promotes the advancement of our species.
Evil = any thought, action, or inaction that detracts from the advancement of our species.
There. That wasn't so hard!
brengun42 2 years ago
then y don't u call us scientologists if science is our god, is it because that name is already taken? oh, and y are we made up of atoms if we're sooooooo special then? oh and we don't presuppose theories for the hell of it, we do it b/c we can test and observe them so technically it isn't presupposition. oh, and though we r just another animal, other animals who do exist eat other animals. does that surprise u? so dont call the cow a brother because it isn't even of the same species.
Rib64 2 years ago
Wait, how did we get to shapeshifting dolphins and dinosaurs?
I think you're mixing up "our understanding of the universe from a scientific point of view" with "how the universe actually functions". Whether you believe in a god or not is irrelevant. Your personal understanding of the universe includes a god, my personal understanding of the universe does not. The universe exists as it always has, regardless.
I'm not seeing the dilemma.
mystermix 2 years ago
If there is no beginning or end, then there cant be a present. So another way to put is we existed even before we were born and we exist even after we die. Hmm! Dont mind me guys Im just thinking outloud. I dont have the answers.
zmode82 2 years ago
No past, no present, no future. Hmm! We've never existed before, we wont exist in the future, we dont exist in the present. We just.....uh EXIST, and thats it. So there is a beginning and end to life no doubt, but not eternity. I mean it wont make any sense to say eternity began or ends, whatever. Its all complicated, God is just too complicated. LOL!
zmode82 2 years ago
So.......I was naturally selected to be a theist? Why does everyone blame me for being one then? LOL!
zmode82 2 years ago
wrong! whales evolved from land animals.
notworthy6 2 years ago
HMM! Now I am confused. I slept thru most of my biology class, so thats why. I thought mamals evolved from sea animals. Now, how come some mamals, like the whale, evolved back to a sea animal from a land animal? Isn't that more like revolving?
zmode82 2 years ago
ha perhaps. but evolution has no direction it's just survival of an organism wherever and whatever it takes. while a mammal branch did go back to the ocean they are still far from fish. They cant breathe underwater and they have very mammalian bone str