@tgillspy2 yeah, I'm not the one who spammed my inbox with inane message after inane message filled with unsupported blanket statements. I asked you to go check out one...ONE website: talkorigins(dot)org; and you simply replied with more inane messages. my favorite: "Darwin is dead, Jesus is alive" you are most definitely a troll.
@eddygoombah No you didn't because if you did you would change your mind toward your atheist position.The O of S book has lead to eugenics thinking.I.e planned parenthood nazi germany...etc
@tgillspy2 omg... eugenics existed way before the origin of species. I stated this in the pm. regardless, charlie darwin had nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe in your god.
Dude, your video is funny...the facial expressions are hilarious. However, I think you should seek out someone that has solid views that are opposite of yours. Google the R.A.T.E. team from the 90's and read about their studies.
the knowing good from evil is certainly some thing that society shapes, here is my example;
a Roman boy is taken by his father to see the gladiators fight and see the condemed put to death. after a day of voilence and slaughter the little boy askes his father if they can come to see the bloodshed again the next day.
@yanashkidd77 as a matter of fact we do! Evolution takes a lot of time&generations to manifest (especially at complex organisms. Bacteria envolve quit fast for example). Today´s humans are for example, constantly growing taller. If u take a look at the average size of human beeings troughout history, u will notice that people, for example 2000 years ago, were way smaller in average than today´s people. I´m only 5`7 but i would have been a two axes swinging berserker back at the vikings-age =D
@Cluwens we are actually growing smaller. their have been sightings of massive human bones in the middle east which proved that humans were bigger then todays age.
@yanashkidd77 well i wasn´t aware of that. I only read about those stats which clearly show the growing of the average men from 5000bc. up to now. As far as i know, ancient humans were stronger than us today but not taller. i guess i would need some more research to discuss on this matter.
Anyway, i´m glad u finally accept the theorie of evolution.
yanashkidd77: "we are actually growing smaller...which proved that humans were bigger then todays age."
@Cluwens yeah so the apes are supposed to be bigger than us but there smaller why? i dont know. so clueless or whatever if wat i said was real it would totally go agianst the evolution religion
@yanashkidd77 evolution is not a religion... you mixed up 2 things. Ancient-men are not apes. I´m talking about Homo-Sapiens (modern men) from about 5000bc - today. Humans did not envolve directly from modern apes but rather from a common ancestor we share with them and so apes and humans developed in 2 different ways. The timespan we´re talking about is several million years when we split off from them.
Richard Dawkins explains it. search Youtube "Richard Dawkins Baldwin" its the first video
@Cluwens how do you know they were homo-sapiens back at 5000bc. that isn't science. we havent tested to see it is actually possible that a homo-sapien lived. were is the proof that homo-sapiens lived. dont use fossils because that has no evidence that we evolved from homo-sapiens. fossills dont come with tags on them and we dont even know if all of the fossils that we found had babies. we havent tested the big bang or animals evolving into other different species so we cant say that it is true.
@eddygoombah so who is our common ancestor nad how did you know that we evoled from it. has it been tested. has evolution been tested. i dont think so so basically evolution is a religion PERIOD
@yanashkidd77 Look, I am not responsible for giving you a remedial science lesson. Ask your teacher. Apparently, either your teacher is horrible, or you are not paying attention.
If you go to a private school, I would be pissed and ask for your money back, because surely you haven't learned anything.
@yanashkidd77 we don´t "test" species to envolve into different species, we "observe" it. As i said, bacteria envolve pretty fast and we can observe it how the mutate. Ever asked your self why they have to develope a whole new injection (flu shot) for the same chickenflu which spreads around the globe from southeast asia of, each year? Its because the bacteria is changing. If u trust on modern medicin, you trust on evolution, this was only an example.
I can't imagine why anyone dislikes this video. If anyone took offense to the farce of a facade you put on as "the creationist," they need to learn to relax because it just made this video that much funnier. What really mattered were the excellent counter points you presented, and this video made me very happy! Keep up the edification of other individuals!
Well, it is you. What you need to do is make sure that they can't fall back on their Bible. Establish early on in the conversation that the bible is not a primary source of information, nor is any text regarding Christ or God. Make sure you get it through to them that they need to explain to you why got exists without using any texts or referencing other people. After they try to explain it on their own, it's fairly easy to get through to them. As soon as they start making shit up, you lose.
@bryanencarnacao1 True they are not incompatible once you take a non-literal view of the Bible, but why does Christianity exist? For me its in the same category as healing crystals, dousing and alchemy. No evidence for it, no need for it. I'm happy for people to believe what they want, but anyone who tells my kid that they will go to hell if they don't believe in their particular delusion will find themselves on the end of a vicous and remorseless verbal attack.
@montrealwatcher are you looking for an intelligent debate because you are never going to find one throwing insults the way you are.
I have plenty to say but the fact is you won't listen to any of it any way so what is the point. if you were really looking for the truth you would find it but people like you pick and choose what they want to hear.
you said earlier "all you do is convince yourself" I have looked for dis-proof I have not found any. IF you know of some please show me where it is.
@montrealwatcher "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent "of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"
it is the wiki definition but its better than urban dictionary!
@montrealwatcher what do you mean before "God stepped in" he was in communication with us from the beginning of our existence when he created us. about those deaths I don't really have an answer other than it was divine judgement its not like he killed innocent people he has always let them escape his wrath.
What Facts what about all the miracles and relics like the Shroud of Turin or parts of the Cross of Jesus crucifixion. I think they have also found things like Noah's arc and tower of babel
@montrealwatcher what facts? just read the nicene creed I think that will some it up for you.
what millions of people are you talking about?
if you don't need some one to tell you not to rape and pillage then where did those morals come from.
it would sure be a lot easier to take everything you want rather than work for it.
before you come in here telling people they are morons why don't you get your facts straight I am done with you if you can't stop yelling and being insulting.
@montrealwatcher I am just going to take a page out of eddygoombah's book here, you are just making platitudes here you say things that have no backing at all. what makes you thing the bible is made of lies and when did God contradict his morals or laws. they have cold hard physical proof of many parts of the new testament.
btw all Morals or laws are based on what some one else tells you. I am pretty sure you don't go around raping and pillaging and guess what is stopping you, morals and laws.
@montrealwatcher If you think it doesn't matter what version of the bible you are using you are a fool. there are versions of the bible that they decided to just remove whole books. not to mention any meaning lost in translation.
dogma isn't going to make sense to you if you have no faith. dogma in the Catholic Church are the things revealed directly by God because there is no proof of them on earth. what morals are you talking about? are you saying it is alright to steal or kill people?
@montrealwatcher look you are obviously just being a troll trying to start a fight if you really have an interest in any of this I encourage you to read up on some official catholic documents. if you read the core beliefs of the Catholic church you will have a much better understanding of my last comment.
also I don't really take the word bible into account unless you have the name of the translation. certain translations and religions pick and choose what they want in the bible. good day sir.
@montrealwatcher I would say read the whole conversation, but I won't put you through that arduous task even though the answer is in there.
Catholicism proves its legitimacy be working, I.E. answering questions with out going against already known fact 100% of the time and has not been disproved or proved. this is the same reason we can say Logic is a legitimate problem solving tool.
@probirdphotographer Well, if you call ignoring the answers and running away after damning your opponent to hell for no reason "winning", then yes... I guess I lost.
I am a creationist and i have absolutely no problem with evolution, if i came from a single cell to a fish and finally got here through monkey ancestors then so be it, i still see creation and design in this world, i cant explain many things but who can? all i know is that i know that we are not justthese bodies but spirities in bodies and i am convinced beyond belief that we are not limited to these material bodies for our existence, just like if u destroy a tv set, the pictures wont die also.
@purpleduke77 than you are not a Young Earth Creationist who claims that the earth was literally created 6000 yrs ago by the hand of god in six 24 hour days, and that evolution is a lie perpetuated by scientists who have become lackeys to the will of satan.
@eddygoombah Well i know what your saying, this is fundamentalist religion for you but hey you never know
nothing is impossible for God LOL i like your vid anyway, its not heavy and its tongue in cheek so why not but i hope you understand what i was saying, i still believe in creation and why couldnt an intelegent being have created this earth through an evolutionary process, even a crabs claw is a master piece of engineering and a spiders web is phenominal, who taught the spider t spin.
while you did handle that conversation well and the other guy was being kind of obnoxious you didn't really disprove God and creationism either, in fact science has never disproven God. (just thought I'd throw that out there)
also I am just curious about how you lost your religion or are you not an atheist at all?
@sarsgarrs This wasn't a debate. All he was doing was asking questions and I was answering them. I took no position that I was trying to prove or disprove. Whether it be god or creationism. So I don't understand your comment.
And I am most definitely an atheist. The reason being that I grew up and stopped believing in imaginary friends.
@eddygoombah The conversation from your video didn't start with a question it started with an attack on your belief in the big bang theory. you responded to antiglobalists' comment in order to defend/prove your beliefs guy.
Imaginary friends? There is proof of God's (Jesus') life on Earth like the Shroud of Turin for example.
and even if that isn't proof enough you should keep in mind that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence "
@sarsgarrs I was simply clarifying his poor understanding on the subject. And then tried to answer his questions the best I could
And it's been 5000 years, and still not one shred of proof of the existence of ANY god, let alone yours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's irrational to be so devout toward something without any evidence. It's called delusion. Don't get pissy at others simply because they wish not to share in it.
@eddygoombah If I am mistaken and you were simply trying to better his understanding then what, may I ask, compelled you to do so?
Admittedly there is no proof of God nor is there proof of evolution or the big bang itself. there is a lot of evidence in favor of the existence of God like the fact that you and I are both aware of our own existence. I am not very good at explaining this reasoning so I will defer you to Thomas Aquinas.
It looks like i may have to send you the link in a PM
@sarsgarrs because he kept on asking me questions. Just like I am doing now. I am trying to better explain what happened. I am answering your questions. If you want, I can take this transcript and make a video out of it as well. although it will be less interesting.
@eddygoombah According to the way you set up the video hey only started asking questions after you responded to his initial comment which was not a question. my question is what compelled you to attempt to better his understanding in the first place.
why are you threating me with making a video out of this transcript, I thought we were having a civilized conversation...
@sarsgarrs also, I'm done trying to defend my motives as to why this conversation with antiglobalists was started. You don't believe me. Fine. I don't really care. If you need more clarification, I have the entire UNABRIDGED conversation with him in another video I made as a response to this one. I suggest you look at it and make up your own mind.
@eddygoombah I read the conversation you had with from the link you put on this video and I see now that you changed the order of the conversation. but I still have to wonder why did you continue the conversation after his comment "...even eistien said there has to be a god" which was not a question and was clearly intended for trolling?
I don't know why I am asking you this question , are probably just going to ignore it once again.
@eddygoombah well Here you I suppose if you might not be intentional ignoring the questions so I will restate them now:
The mystery isn't that you corrected someone's false statement, the mystery is in why you corrected them.
and What is wrong with Thomas Aquinas? (I did forget the question mark originally) All I am offering by quoting Thomas Aquinas is a Philosophical proof.
@sarsgarrs If someone comes onto my page and touts that "2+2=5" I feel compelled to correct that person. If he continues to insufficiently suggest how 2+2=5, then I will continue to correct him. I don't know any other way I can tell you that. Is my answer not good enough? Should I demonstrate it in another analogy?
@sarsgarrs As far as Aquinas is concerned, to me it's the blind leading the blind. I am more familiar with his Cosmological Argument. none of Aquinas's proofs conclude the existence of the Christian God. If his premises and logic are accepted (and they shouldn't be) they at most conclude the existence of a first cause or creator. He makes no suggestion to who/what caused this first cause. This argument or proof does not establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity.
@sarsgarrs (cont) The Burden of Proof demands that the positive claim that there is a supernatural deity be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that standard. The believer in god can use the argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity
@sarsgarrs (cont last) ...or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being. The argument does not establish any degree of probability at all when there are alternative explanations for the existence of the known universe.
@eddygoombah Ok I am fine now, you feel compelled to correct ignorance that is fine. I will definitely agree with you that the argument made by Aquinas does not prove the existence of God it is mealy evidence. I still don't understand why you think that his argument and logic should not be accepted but If God has not been proven or disproven then I don't see how you can logically rule out the possibility when what we know about the known universe doesn't explain the beginning of time either.
@sarsgarrs I don't think the argument should be accepted as a basis to bolster Christian faith (which I CONSTANTLY see it done so many times ad nauseam) because it fails to mention what caused the first cause. If your goal is to simply suggest the possibility that a creator is neither provable nor disprovable, then I have no problems with anyone accepting it. However, using Aquinas to suggest that the christian god is true is what I feel should not be accepted.
@eddygoombah well good then we have no problem all I wanted to show was that a creator is a possibility. as it may happen that creator of the universe the thing that started it all is my God because the definition of the creator of the universe matches my definition of God
@eddygoombah and while we are on the subject science does not explain almost any of the known Miracles that occur on Earth like the liquification of the blood of saint januarius.
@eddygoombah the liquification of the blood of saint januarius is not a liquid with strange properties. it is solid/dried blood that, on particular days in the year (like saint januarius' feast day) turns to liquid with out any other change in variables like heat. many scientist have studied this blood and have no explanation.
You can't simply dismiss something just because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.
@sarsgarrs you missed my explanation entirely. This is becoming sort of a pattern.
Simply because something doesn't have a scientific explanation doesn't mean it has to have a supernatural one. Automatically saying, "Wow, I don't know how that is... GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT!" is intellectual dishonesty at its most potent. You might as well throw out all scientific progress in the last 150 years while you're at it.
@sarsgarrs No, you are making foolish assumptions. Everything else has been explained by natural means given enough time. You are simply using god of the gaps. You're not that dumb.
@eddygoombah how is a 1-1 correlation a foolish assumption. there are no other cases where this type of transformation happens.
unless some one can offer a plausible scientific explanation I am going to stick by my logic which probably means this part of the conversation is over. unless you have something to add.
@sarsgarrs Youre not understanding that jumping to a supernatural cause to an observence when a natural explanation hasn't been proven yet is NOT LOGIC. It is magic thinking and is the very opposite of logic. If you can't understand that then no wonder you believe in angels.
@eddygoombah I understand that you can't just jump to conclusions but in this case when a natural cause hasn't been proven but the problem is that no one has even suggested a natural explanation. you must have missed point A from my previous comment. "There is no other logical cause offered".
@sarsgarrs You saying that there is no other logical cause offered doesn't make it so. Regardless, even if there hasnt been, this doesn't mean that its cause is supernatural. How many times do you want me to say that?
@sarsgarrs No it doesn't, only in your mind it does. From an objective perspective it does not come close to pointing to a supernatural cause. The only time it does is if you are looking for a supernatural cause. it has been packaged and marketed to seem that way, and you have bought it hook line and sinker. Simply because you think it seems supernatural doesn't make it so. Thank goodness science doesn't have the luxury to settle for assumptions.
@sarsgarrs Holy tap dancing Christ you are thick. Which is more assuming? Trying to weigh all the options, trying to find out all possible causes? Or simply saying "I don't know.... Guess God done did it!"
@sarsgarrs If god wanted to perform a miracle, how about coming down here and showing us he exists? He used to do it all the time apparently, and it didn't affect anyone's free will at all. I still have the choice whether to follow the guy or not. But it would sure answer a hell of a lot of questions and would single handedly stop anymore holy wars since we would all know once and for all who the true god was. Now THAT is a miracle. Some freakin blood Ina vile? Gimme a break.
@eddygoombah IF God were to show himself in all his glory one you would not have free will. it would be like denying the existence of the Sun you would see and feel it in your presence. God has shown just enough that if you seek him you will find him but if you don't you will not. IT is all a matter of Faith. I am 100% sure that God has never revealed him self in full before.
@sarsgarrs That is a cop out. Simply showing that god exists doesn't eradicate free will. Just ask the people that jesus appeared to after his resurrection. Or the folks whom god appeared to in the old testament. It didn't affect their free will one bit. If he could do it to a few people, he can do it to everyone. Shoot, lucifer stood in the presence of god and STILL chose to deny him. So this whole "if god were to show himself it would destroy free will" nonsense is just that... nonsense.
@eddygoombah First of all God has often humbled himself before man to communicate with us. this humbled form of God is much different than the raw un mitigated God. I can not vouch for what happened when Lucifer rejected God, weather God had humbled himself there or not, but even if he didn't Humans and Angles are hardly on the same level.
tell me one time that God has shown his true self, I certainly can't think of any.
@sarsgarrs is jesus not god now? When he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection, was he not god? I don't give two craps about who was humbled or not, communication is a form of revealing ones self.
I'll say it again: if god, the all powerful, all knowing, all good, all present being can do it to a few people, he can do it to everyone. The fact that he doesn't means either he doesn't care, or he doesn't exist.
@eddygoombah You yourself said you were Catholic at one point, If you didn't believe in Angles then what did you think Lucifer was or Saint Michale The Arc-angle was.
Ignoring half of the situation (weather he was humbled or not) is very ignorant it makes a huge difference Holy Communion is God every time we have Mass except he is humbled. we are communicating right now and you have no idea what I look like and if it were not for the video I would be in the same situation.
@sarsgarrs You are implying that to suppose a supernatural cause in some observance is just as valid as trying to find a naturalistic cause. You are also suggesting that the universe had to be created by your personal god because you see design. Design = designer. You are also suggesting that if we don't know why something is/happens, then god's work is obviously there. Am i close?
@sarsgarrs I don't know why you are even still here. You have been reduced to admitting that only faith can help you find god, not evidence. I explained my feelings on faith. yet you still feel compelled to suggest that this will change my view You yourself said that "there can be no discussion on this topic if we share no common ground :)" so why are you still here? Have fun with your saints and vial of blood. But leave me and anyone else who doesn't want to share in you Tolkien story alone
@eddygoombah Oh i guess that comment didn't post. I said that Faith is only half of the equation.
Faith is like a tool you can use to help you find evidence just like trust in scientific hypothesis and principles helps one to find evidence in science.
Just like you I feel Compelled to correct ignorance. your rejection of God is my equivalent to the 2+2=5 that you wanted to correct.
@eddygoombah You just admitted that you agree with the possibility of a creator that started the universe. that creator is the same thing as God there is no way around it. if a creator is a logical possibility then so is God
@sarsgarrs Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn't a pathway to truth, Every religion has faith. Who is to distinguish what is true between judaism, islam, hinduism and mormanism if faith is your only measurement of truth? How is it that you use reason as a path to truth in every endeavour in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth, you say that faith is required. What kind of god requires faith instead of evidence? (cont)
@sarsgarrs(cont) and before you suggest that I or other atheists rely on "faith" as well, let me extinguish that thought right now. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned. I will grant trust tentatively, I don't have faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they DON'T have evidence. If you can come up with something that I believe that I don't have evidence for, you know what? I'll stop believing it. It's called rationalism.
@sarsgarrs (cont) When I was a catholic, I felt compelled to be the best catholic I could be, and represent the word of god to people who didn't believe. And because I cared whether my beliefs were true rather whether they FELT good, what I found was that my beliefs weren't justified. And when I asked people like you about why I couldn't find proper evidence to back up my ideology, I got the same answer you just gave me. "Faith". I'm sorry, but faith is not a virtue, it's gullibility.
@eddygoombah I don't know what kind of evidence you were looking for but you can't find scientific evidence for something outside of the physical universe that would be like using a thermometer to find your weight.
@eddygoombah but you know my "Platitude" is right, right? and if what I said is right then little or no proof of God would exist in the Universe.
the only proof would be in the way it is designed. the universe like a work of art. It is possible that, by scattering paint on a canvas (matter into space) you would produce the Mona Lisa( the world / universe) but it is far more likely that it was painted that way.
@eddygoombah Yet again you dismiss what I am saying with no explanation other than I am wrong or what i said is meaningless. I think the reason you left the Catholic Faith was because you didn't understand the faith or like many people you wanted to justify something the church says is wrong. If you don't listen to what other people are saying and say you are right in every circumstance then no one can help you.
@sarsgarrs And now you are using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You have officially hit a new level of theist predictability. I am listening to you find and dandy. Don't accuse me of ignoring your statements because you can't grasp the concept that if there is no natural explanation yet, that doesn't automatically mean a supernatural cause. Please look up "god of the gaps" and get back to me.
@eddygoombah The Gaps in science are where God is the prevalent it doesn't mean there is evidence out side of those "Gaps". You seem to spend a lot of time looking for evidence to support your argument, do you ever look for the evidence against it.
I have one last challenge for you. Try to prove Logic. keep in mind that you can not prove something with itself
@sarsgarrs Try to prove love... logic doesn't need proof. It Is a human construct whereupon someone can formulate a formal systematic study of valid inference and correct reasoning. It uses reason, sound judgement, argumentation, and reliable inference. It is a practice that uses inductive and deductive reasoning. It is a method, not an ideology. Just the mere fact that you are asking to prove logic shows you know little of it. Again, no wonder you are a theist.
@eddygoombah sure logic is a method but how do you know it is the right method, something had to tell you that logic is correct? further more how do you know your reasoning is sound? what makes a valid inference while you are at it.
@sarsgarrs You're kidding me right? Just look around you. If it wasnt for logic and reason, the computer you are on right now would not exist. We would never have broken earths gravity to land on the moon. We would have never eradicated polio or small pox. We would never have had the internet, or a basic understanding of our place in the universe. It is the right method because it has been tried and tested and proven to be the ONLY method that gives humanity the objective understanding (cont)
@sarsgarrs You officially have not been paying attention. I told you I cannot prove logic. It is a method which has a very successful history. I am now making fun of not just your beliefs, but the fact that it takes you 4 times to understand something.
@eddygoombah I Think I am done with this conversation. you don't seem to read the entirety of what I am saying. You seem like you know what your looking for. you can't answer questions by simply contorting things to fit your view.
@sarsgarrs (cont) ...about our world without superstition or magical thinking. There is a reason the last era where Christianity had control of western society was called the "dark ages". Logic can be tested, it can be falsified, it can be measured. Logic works. Period. I trust it because it works. period.
@sarsgarrs And now Anothr bad analogy. Youre really rounding all the bases. I have SEEN someone paint a painting. Simply because something appears to have design doesn't constitute a designer. Do you think crystals or snowflakes are designed one by one by a supernatural being? No. There are explained natural forces that are at play.
@eddygoombah and what caused those natural forces at the beginning?
sure, we have all seen some one paint something before but that is just it if you had a computer randomly arranging colors eventually you will get the same picture that so and so just painted. but just how likely is that to happen in fact it could never happen if the chance was reset for each new picture. however when you see a picture you assume someone painted it but when you see the world you say it happened at random.
@sarsgarrs I assume someone painted the picture because I have seen someone paint it. I can even read their signature. However there is no definitive answer as to what actually caused everything. No one does. Not even your holy books or priests. If anyone suggests that they know for certain, again, they are trying to sell you something. Sure, science has a few models that point to a natural cause, but we don't know for sure. Science is not afraid to say "I don't know". Its the most honest answer
@eddygoombah a signature could be randomly generated just like the rest of the picture but you can be sure that some one painted a picture because it has patterns which fit together in a way that displays the likeness of something else. this art has a near zero% chance of happening on it's own and the perfect harmony that we see in the natural world is just as likely to have happened as that randomly generated picture. this suggest an intelligent creator of the universe
@sarsgarrs Again. I have seen someone paint a painting. There have been many inferences where people have witnessed a painting being made. No One has witnessed a universe bent made. The only things we have to go on are the facts and evidence left behind. Simply becuse something is complex doesn't mean it had a designer. Assuming there is one is asinine.
@eddygoombah are you listening to what I am saying. You assume that every picture was "painted" by some one just because you saw a person paint a picture once.
@sarsgarrs I believe every painting was made by someone or something because there is precedent to justify this belief. No one has witnessed anyone or anything make a universe, so to assume this happened is magical thinking.
@eddygoombah this is a foolish argument we are having since neither of us has evidence that proves or disproves our point. any way this is my last comment so I just want to leave you or any body else that reads this comment with this: Listen to philosophical arguments, just because they are not based on scientific evidence doesn't invalidate the point they make. Also Materialist is a better title for you. not to say you are greedy but that you only believe in the physical part of things.
@sarsgarrs Materialist? Sure! I'm also a humanist, skeptic, pragmatist, realist, atheist, or whatever title you wanna labor me as. All I know is that I'm not the one making a positive claim here. The onus is on the one making the claim. If someone reacts with "prove it" or "I'm not convinced", it is not up to them to prove why they are skeptical but on the person who made the claim. It's not that hard.
@eddygoombah I have already proved my point nothing has disproved my arguments so its up to you to find more if you don't agree with it that is your problem.
@sarsgarrs I love how you make sweeping blanket absolutist statements. "nothing has disproved my arguments"
Ok, have fun believing that little dollop of delusion as well. And while we're making platitudes, here's one for you: talking to you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You'll knock some pieces over, crap on the table, and then fly home to boast of your victory.
@sarsgarrs which statement? the one where you said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "the universe looks designed so it must have had a designer"? or the one where "miracles have evidence even though it takes faith to believe in god"? or the one where you said "good bye"?
because so far there, pancho, not one of these have been right.
@eddygoombah IF my statement about the universe isn't right then you can't say that every painting was painted either (unless of course you have seen that particular picture has been painted)
I never said it takes Faith to believe in God. it takes faith in something weather it is Logic or Religion or both to find the truth.
see what I mean when I saw you are twisting my words to fit your argument.
@sarsgarrs Faith is belief without knowledge. It is believing when you have no evidence to belief. You canny use faith to then discover proof of it. That would no longer be faith. That would be "knowledge".
@eddygoombah Faith is trust. Just like you or I might have faith or trust in some one to do something a particular way. when in reference to a concept faith is the trust in the fundamentals of that concept. for Catholicism Faith is summed up by The Nicene Creed which is basically every thing revealed to man by God.
No I will agree it is not intelligent to believe in this. However it is just like Logic, it uses the truths given by the concept to prove its self in tests.
@eddygoombah "The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them…. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed."
@sarsgarrs Anither meaningless Platitude. If you had any evidence, you wouldn't need faith. You're running yourself around in circles and you don't even know it. Have fun in your delusions. I thought you were leaving? Hmm...
@eddygoombah If you are going to continue calling half of the things I say I say platitudes do you care to explain your reasoning? I don't care much for all of these insults you are throwing out at me, It really shows how mature you are.
@eddygoombah you said earlier that platitudes are meaningless statements. what made my statement meaningless. are you just throwing words out here hoping they will stumble me?
@sarsgarrs you are basically copy/pasting a nice sounding saying that adds nothing to the conversation. You might think it poignant in your solopsistic myopic perspective, but in the grand scheme of things, it's ultimately meaningless. "Believers are good and smart, non believers are bad and dumb... and they smell like farts" That's great... and? How does this help anything? What facts or evidence does this provide? nothing. It's just an empty platitude.
@eddygoombah you are right I am coping and pasting hence the quotation marks. the fact that you call them platitudes is my own fault for not elaborating on those statements.
my statement is only saying that I (As a Christian) have not rejected any scientific evidence. for all I know the big Bang could have been how the universe was created I don't know the bible is very vague when it comes to the beginning of the universe all it really tells us is that God caused it.
@eddygoombah you (as an Atheist) on the other hand reject God and miracles on the doctrine that a supernatural causes are impossible you have no evidence to say that a supernatural cause is out of the question. all my quotation is saying is that you are close minded.
@sarsgarrs If there were any reasonable verifiable evidence for any of that, there would be no need to reject them. You apparently have lower standards to prove things than I do.
@eddygoombah to additionally support my statement that Catholicism is not close minded to science; We bring in Atheist frequently when testing Miracles to see if they are real.
also When the Big Bang theory was first suggested by a Catholic Priest a large amount of the scientific community rejected it for a long time.
@sarsgarrs and the fact that you would use it to support the side you are trying to take shows that you have little regard for actual logical discourse. I am not trying to stumble you. You are doing a good job of that yourself with little help from me. It has been obvious from the beginning that you aren't here to have a logical discussion. I consistently have enough real conversations with theists to know this. You simply want to type your cemented ideology, however poorly concocted, AT me
@sarsgarrs so go ahead. Try to guise your words with sincerity. You and I both know that you really don't care for any other perspective other than your own. This is the reason for why my responses are a little brash. Because you cannot grasp simple concepts like "the onus is on the person making a positive claim". Simply saying, "No, you don't get it. I am right" adds no weight to a debate. I don't despise theists, one of my heroes, Ken Miller, is a Catholic. You could learn something from him
@sarsgarrs (cont) Bottom line: Evidence is what determines whether or not your perception of reality is reasonable and in conjunction with the world as it is. Anyone who says differently is trying to sell you something.
@eddygoombah Yes but since neither of us has enough evidence to prove our perspectives then you have to make a decision. I chose Catholicism and religion because even if I am wrong and there is no God I don't have to worry about anything. You on the other hand may be right and, if so, you and I will have the same fate but if not you will be wrong and you will have a lot of trouble on your hands after death.
@tgillspy2 Huh? Why do you?
eddygoombah 3 hours ago
@tgillspy2 I never avoided anything. You are just being a troll
eddygoombah 4 hours ago
@eddygoombah Why do you think of morality....
tgillspy2 3 hours ago
without god there is no good and evil... hehehe... without good and evil there is no god.
or, ... maybe it was just a crazy accident.
And we are all damned, once we are dead, it's the sleep with no dreams...
akapunishment 1 week ago
The truth is this that you need to repent..........
tgillspy2 6 hours ago
@tgillspy2 the truth is that you're a troll
eddygoombah 5 hours ago
@eddygoombah Not at all....
tgillspy2 5 hours ago
@tgillspy2 yeah, I'm not the one who spammed my inbox with inane message after inane message filled with unsupported blanket statements. I asked you to go check out one...ONE website: talkorigins(dot)org; and you simply replied with more inane messages. my favorite: "Darwin is dead, Jesus is alive" you are most definitely a troll.
eddygoombah 4 hours ago
@eddygoombah I have a question for you explain why eugenics is wrong and evil.....
tgillspy2 4 hours ago
@tgillspy2 I already answered all of this in private message. Stop acting the fool.
eddygoombah 4 hours ago
@eddygoombah No you didn't because if you did you would change your mind toward your atheist position.The O of S book has lead to eugenics thinking.I.e planned parenthood nazi germany...etc
tgillspy2 4 hours ago
@tgillspy2 omg... eugenics existed way before the origin of species. I stated this in the pm. regardless, charlie darwin had nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe in your god.
troll
eddygoombah 4 hours ago
@eddygoombah You like avoiding the issue don't you..."survival of favoured races....."
tgillspy2 4 hours ago
Antiglobalists's video: This video is no longer available because the uploader has closed their YouTube account.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 month ago
Dude, your video is funny...the facial expressions are hilarious. However, I think you should seek out someone that has solid views that are opposite of yours. Google the R.A.T.E. team from the 90's and read about their studies.
meer8 2 months ago
The argument at 3,43-
should be taught in all schools.
N1clasR 8 months ago
the knowing good from evil is certainly some thing that society shapes, here is my example;
a Roman boy is taken by his father to see the gladiators fight and see the condemed put to death. after a day of voilence and slaughter the little boy askes his father if they can come to see the bloodshed again the next day.
is that boy born evil?
or
is he the produce of society?
ZLi0n 8 months ago
Awesome! I would agree that conversationsdo go just like that.
rainbowdust919 8 months ago
lame
yanashkidd77 8 months ago
@yanashkidd77 "lame" i take this as: "Thank you Cluwens for beeing patient and explaining me all that stuff" you´re welcome
Cluwens 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yanashkidd77 For me, you are the newest stupidest person on YouTube. Congratulations, you've earned it.
fdasherv 3 months ago
why aren't we still evolving?
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
@yanashkidd77 as a matter of fact we do! Evolution takes a lot of time&generations to manifest (especially at complex organisms. Bacteria envolve quit fast for example). Today´s humans are for example, constantly growing taller. If u take a look at the average size of human beeings troughout history, u will notice that people, for example 2000 years ago, were way smaller in average than today´s people. I´m only 5`7 but i would have been a two axes swinging berserker back at the vikings-age =D
Cluwens 9 months ago
@Cluwens cluwens, don't bother, yanash is just a troll.
eddygoombah 9 months ago
@Cluwens we are actually growing smaller. their have been sightings of massive human bones in the middle east which proved that humans were bigger then todays age.
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
@yanashkidd77 well i wasn´t aware of that. I only read about those stats which clearly show the growing of the average men from 5000bc. up to now. As far as i know, ancient humans were stronger than us today but not taller. i guess i would need some more research to discuss on this matter.
Anyway, i´m glad u finally accept the theorie of evolution.
yanashkidd77: "we are actually growing smaller...which proved that humans were bigger then todays age."
...i would call that an evolutionary process
Cluwens 9 months ago
@Cluwens yeah so the apes are supposed to be bigger than us but there smaller why? i dont know. so clueless or whatever if wat i said was real it would totally go agianst the evolution religion
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
@yanashkidd77 evolution is not a religion... you mixed up 2 things. Ancient-men are not apes. I´m talking about Homo-Sapiens (modern men) from about 5000bc - today. Humans did not envolve directly from modern apes but rather from a common ancestor we share with them and so apes and humans developed in 2 different ways. The timespan we´re talking about is several million years when we split off from them.
Richard Dawkins explains it. search Youtube "Richard Dawkins Baldwin" its the first video
Cluwens 9 months ago
@Cluwens how do you know they were homo-sapiens back at 5000bc. that isn't science. we havent tested to see it is actually possible that a homo-sapien lived. were is the proof that homo-sapiens lived. dont use fossils because that has no evidence that we evolved from homo-sapiens. fossills dont come with tags on them and we dont even know if all of the fossils that we found had babies. we havent tested the big bang or animals evolving into other different species so we cant say that it is true.
yanashkidd77 8 months ago
@yanashkidd77 we didn't "evolve" from homo sapiens... WE ARE HOMO SAPIENS
holy shit...
you = retarded.
eddygoombah 8 months ago
@eddygoombah so who is our common ancestor nad how did you know that we evoled from it. has it been tested. has evolution been tested. i dont think so so basically evolution is a religion PERIOD
yanashkidd77 8 months ago
@yanashkidd77 Look, I am not responsible for giving you a remedial science lesson. Ask your teacher. Apparently, either your teacher is horrible, or you are not paying attention.
If you go to a private school, I would be pissed and ask for your money back, because surely you haven't learned anything.
eddygoombah 8 months ago
@yanashkidd77 we don´t "test" species to envolve into different species, we "observe" it. As i said, bacteria envolve pretty fast and we can observe it how the mutate. Ever asked your self why they have to develope a whole new injection (flu shot) for the same chickenflu which spreads around the globe from southeast asia of, each year? Its because the bacteria is changing. If u trust on modern medicin, you trust on evolution, this was only an example.
Cluwens 8 months ago
u should be an actor. ur imitation of a christian is spot on. lol
Boomx2Brian 9 months ago
@Boomx2Brian
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
...no, it's not just you.
Reasonable, logical discussion with young-earth creationists is like training cats for BMX racing.
donfishmaster 10 months ago 13
I love you,
I can't imagine why anyone dislikes this video. If anyone took offense to the farce of a facade you put on as "the creationist," they need to learn to relax because it just made this video that much funnier. What really mattered were the excellent counter points you presented, and this video made me very happy! Keep up the edification of other individuals!
dphelan1994 10 months ago
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE turn that character into a Poe, its hillarious. It could rival Ed Current. The Ali G spin at the end is 'wicked'.
Good explanation of general principles also. I like this vid on every level. Nice work.
labrat1807 10 months ago
Well, it is you. What you need to do is make sure that they can't fall back on their Bible. Establish early on in the conversation that the bible is not a primary source of information, nor is any text regarding Christ or God. Make sure you get it through to them that they need to explain to you why got exists without using any texts or referencing other people. After they try to explain it on their own, it's fairly easy to get through to them. As soon as they start making shit up, you lose.
Mattt8D 10 months ago
@Mattt8D That will maybe work on about 1 out of 10,000 young earth creationists. The rest will turn out more like this.
eddygoombah 10 months ago
@eddygoombah Better than none...
Mattt8D 10 months ago
@Mattt8D lol... ok dude
eddygoombah 10 months ago
@eddygoombah whoa that guy is dumb!!
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
the question isnt evolution OR God/Christianity.. it is evolution and christianity.. they are compatible if you study/look at them close enough
bryanencarnacao1 10 months ago
@bryanencarnacao1 True they are not incompatible once you take a non-literal view of the Bible, but why does Christianity exist? For me its in the same category as healing crystals, dousing and alchemy. No evidence for it, no need for it. I'm happy for people to believe what they want, but anyone who tells my kid that they will go to hell if they don't believe in their particular delusion will find themselves on the end of a vicous and remorseless verbal attack.
labrat1807 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher are you looking for an intelligent debate because you are never going to find one throwing insults the way you are.
I have plenty to say but the fact is you won't listen to any of it any way so what is the point. if you were really looking for the truth you would find it but people like you pick and choose what they want to hear.
you said earlier "all you do is convince yourself" I have looked for dis-proof I have not found any. IF you know of some please show me where it is.
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent "of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"
it is the wiki definition but its better than urban dictionary!
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher you just confirmed my point that you are not here to have a conversation or learn or teach you are here to troll I am done
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher what do you mean before "God stepped in" he was in communication with us from the beginning of our existence when he created us. about those deaths I don't really have an answer other than it was divine judgement its not like he killed innocent people he has always let them escape his wrath.
What Facts what about all the miracles and relics like the Shroud of Turin or parts of the Cross of Jesus crucifixion. I think they have also found things like Noah's arc and tower of babel
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher what facts? just read the nicene creed I think that will some it up for you.
what millions of people are you talking about?
if you don't need some one to tell you not to rape and pillage then where did those morals come from.
it would sure be a lot easier to take everything you want rather than work for it.
before you come in here telling people they are morons why don't you get your facts straight I am done with you if you can't stop yelling and being insulting.
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher I am just going to take a page out of eddygoombah's book here, you are just making platitudes here you say things that have no backing at all. what makes you thing the bible is made of lies and when did God contradict his morals or laws. they have cold hard physical proof of many parts of the new testament.
btw all Morals or laws are based on what some one else tells you. I am pretty sure you don't go around raping and pillaging and guess what is stopping you, morals and laws.
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher If you think it doesn't matter what version of the bible you are using you are a fool. there are versions of the bible that they decided to just remove whole books. not to mention any meaning lost in translation.
dogma isn't going to make sense to you if you have no faith. dogma in the Catholic Church are the things revealed directly by God because there is no proof of them on earth. what morals are you talking about? are you saying it is alright to steal or kill people?
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
You're a good actor :D well... reasonable at least... :S good stuff
QeloHawk 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher look you are obviously just being a troll trying to start a fight if you really have an interest in any of this I encourage you to read up on some official catholic documents. if you read the core beliefs of the Catholic church you will have a much better understanding of my last comment.
also I don't really take the word bible into account unless you have the name of the translation. certain translations and religions pick and choose what they want in the bible. good day sir.
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
@montrealwatcher I would say read the whole conversation, but I won't put you through that arduous task even though the answer is in there.
Catholicism proves its legitimacy be working, I.E. answering questions with out going against already known fact 100% of the time and has not been disproved or proved. this is the same reason we can say Logic is a legitimate problem solving tool.
sarsgarrs 10 months ago
It doesn't look like you won the debate.
probirdphotographer 10 months ago
@probirdphotographer Well, if you call ignoring the answers and running away after damning your opponent to hell for no reason "winning", then yes... I guess I lost.
:/
eddygoombah 10 months ago 8
@eddygoombah dude calm down
yanashkidd77 9 months ago
I am a creationist and i have absolutely no problem with evolution, if i came from a single cell to a fish and finally got here through monkey ancestors then so be it, i still see creation and design in this world, i cant explain many things but who can? all i know is that i know that we are not justthese bodies but spirities in bodies and i am convinced beyond belief that we are not limited to these material bodies for our existence, just like if u destroy a tv set, the pictures wont die also.
purpleduke77 11 months ago
@purpleduke77 than you are not a Young Earth Creationist who claims that the earth was literally created 6000 yrs ago by the hand of god in six 24 hour days, and that evolution is a lie perpetuated by scientists who have become lackeys to the will of satan.
and therefore this video is not directed at you.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Well i know what your saying, this is fundamentalist religion for you but hey you never know
nothing is impossible for God LOL i like your vid anyway, its not heavy and its tongue in cheek so why not but i hope you understand what i was saying, i still believe in creation and why couldnt an intelegent being have created this earth through an evolutionary process, even a crabs claw is a master piece of engineering and a spiders web is phenominal, who taught the spider t spin.
purpleduke77 11 months ago
while you did handle that conversation well and the other guy was being kind of obnoxious you didn't really disprove God and creationism either, in fact science has never disproven God. (just thought I'd throw that out there)
also I am just curious about how you lost your religion or are you not an atheist at all?
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs This wasn't a debate. All he was doing was asking questions and I was answering them. I took no position that I was trying to prove or disprove. Whether it be god or creationism. So I don't understand your comment.
And I am most definitely an atheist. The reason being that I grew up and stopped believing in imaginary friends.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah The conversation from your video didn't start with a question it started with an attack on your belief in the big bang theory. you responded to antiglobalists' comment in order to defend/prove your beliefs guy.
Imaginary friends? There is proof of God's (Jesus') life on Earth like the Shroud of Turin for example.
and even if that isn't proof enough you should keep in mind that "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence "
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I was simply clarifying his poor understanding on the subject. And then tried to answer his questions the best I could
And it's been 5000 years, and still not one shred of proof of the existence of ANY god, let alone yours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's irrational to be so devout toward something without any evidence. It's called delusion. Don't get pissy at others simply because they wish not to share in it.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah If I am mistaken and you were simply trying to better his understanding then what, may I ask, compelled you to do so?
Admittedly there is no proof of God nor is there proof of evolution or the big bang itself. there is a lot of evidence in favor of the existence of God like the fact that you and I are both aware of our own existence. I am not very good at explaining this reasoning so I will defer you to Thomas Aquinas.
It looks like i may have to send you the link in a PM
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs because he kept on asking me questions. Just like I am doing now. I am trying to better explain what happened. I am answering your questions. If you want, I can take this transcript and make a video out of it as well. although it will be less interesting.
and really? Thomas Aquinas.... ugh... facepalm
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah According to the way you set up the video hey only started asking questions after you responded to his initial comment which was not a question. my question is what compelled you to attempt to better his understanding in the first place.
why are you threating me with making a video out of this transcript, I thought we were having a civilized conversation...
What is wrong with Thomas Aquinas.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs wow... I'm not threatening you. I was making an example in a joking matter. holy shit balls, bat man.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah ok, but you still didn't answer any of my questions.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs also, I'm done trying to defend my motives as to why this conversation with antiglobalists was started. You don't believe me. Fine. I don't really care. If you need more clarification, I have the entire UNABRIDGED conversation with him in another video I made as a response to this one. I suggest you look at it and make up your own mind.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah I read the conversation you had with from the link you put on this video and I see now that you changed the order of the conversation. but I still have to wonder why did you continue the conversation after his comment "...even eistien said there has to be a god" which was not a question and was clearly intended for trolling?
I don't know why I am asking you this question , are probably just going to ignore it once again.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs i'm not ignoring anything. stop suggesting i did. I thought the dude was being sincere. If someone came on to my channel and said, "2+2=5"
I would say, "no it's 4"
why the mystery?
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah well Here you I suppose if you might not be intentional ignoring the questions so I will restate them now:
The mystery isn't that you corrected someone's false statement, the mystery is in why you corrected them.
and What is wrong with Thomas Aquinas? (I did forget the question mark originally) All I am offering by quoting Thomas Aquinas is a Philosophical proof.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs If someone comes onto my page and touts that "2+2=5" I feel compelled to correct that person. If he continues to insufficiently suggest how 2+2=5, then I will continue to correct him. I don't know any other way I can tell you that. Is my answer not good enough? Should I demonstrate it in another analogy?
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs As far as Aquinas is concerned, to me it's the blind leading the blind. I am more familiar with his Cosmological Argument. none of Aquinas's proofs conclude the existence of the Christian God. If his premises and logic are accepted (and they shouldn't be) they at most conclude the existence of a first cause or creator. He makes no suggestion to who/what caused this first cause. This argument or proof does not establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs (cont) The Burden of Proof demands that the positive claim that there is a supernatural deity be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that standard. The believer in god can use the argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs (cont last) ...or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that there is such a being. The argument does not establish any degree of probability at all when there are alternative explanations for the existence of the known universe.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Ok I am fine now, you feel compelled to correct ignorance that is fine. I will definitely agree with you that the argument made by Aquinas does not prove the existence of God it is mealy evidence. I still don't understand why you think that his argument and logic should not be accepted but If God has not been proven or disproven then I don't see how you can logically rule out the possibility when what we know about the known universe doesn't explain the beginning of time either.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I don't think the argument should be accepted as a basis to bolster Christian faith (which I CONSTANTLY see it done so many times ad nauseam) because it fails to mention what caused the first cause. If your goal is to simply suggest the possibility that a creator is neither provable nor disprovable, then I have no problems with anyone accepting it. However, using Aquinas to suggest that the christian god is true is what I feel should not be accepted.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah well good then we have no problem all I wanted to show was that a creator is a possibility. as it may happen that creator of the universe the thing that started it all is my God because the definition of the creator of the universe matches my definition of God
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs ....facepalm.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah and while we are on the subject science does not explain almost any of the known Miracles that occur on Earth like the liquification of the blood of saint januarius.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I don't believe in miracles. Just because there is some liquid with strange properties doesn't lend any proof to a supernatural cause.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah the liquification of the blood of saint januarius is not a liquid with strange properties. it is solid/dried blood that, on particular days in the year (like saint januarius' feast day) turns to liquid with out any other change in variables like heat. many scientist have studied this blood and have no explanation.
You can't simply dismiss something just because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs you missed my explanation entirely. This is becoming sort of a pattern.
Simply because something doesn't have a scientific explanation doesn't mean it has to have a supernatural one. Automatically saying, "Wow, I don't know how that is... GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT!" is intellectual dishonesty at its most potent. You might as well throw out all scientific progress in the last 150 years while you're at it.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Believing in a supernatural cause for a "Miracle" is perfectly acceptable when
A There is no other logical cause offered
B The event happens in congruence with a religious event such as The saint feast day.
C The event is clearly linked to the religious holiday (like the fact that it is the saints blood.)
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs No, you are making foolish assumptions. Everything else has been explained by natural means given enough time. You are simply using god of the gaps. You're not that dumb.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah how is a 1-1 correlation a foolish assumption. there are no other cases where this type of transformation happens.
unless some one can offer a plausible scientific explanation I am going to stick by my logic which probably means this part of the conversation is over. unless you have something to add.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Youre not understanding that jumping to a supernatural cause to an observence when a natural explanation hasn't been proven yet is NOT LOGIC. It is magic thinking and is the very opposite of logic. If you can't understand that then no wonder you believe in angels.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah I understand that you can't just jump to conclusions but in this case when a natural cause hasn't been proven but the problem is that no one has even suggested a natural explanation. you must have missed point A from my previous comment. "There is no other logical cause offered".
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs You saying that there is no other logical cause offered doesn't make it so. Regardless, even if there hasnt been, this doesn't mean that its cause is supernatural. How many times do you want me to say that?
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah OK yeah it doesn't have to be supernatural but when you look at all the facts it points to supernatural causes.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs No it doesn't, only in your mind it does. From an objective perspective it does not come close to pointing to a supernatural cause. The only time it does is if you are looking for a supernatural cause. it has been packaged and marketed to seem that way, and you have bought it hook line and sinker. Simply because you think it seems supernatural doesn't make it so. Thank goodness science doesn't have the luxury to settle for assumptions.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you are just as bad by assuming that it is not a supernatural cause.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Holy tap dancing Christ you are thick. Which is more assuming? Trying to weigh all the options, trying to find out all possible causes? Or simply saying "I don't know.... Guess God done did it!"
The only objective stance is that of skepticism
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs If god wanted to perform a miracle, how about coming down here and showing us he exists? He used to do it all the time apparently, and it didn't affect anyone's free will at all. I still have the choice whether to follow the guy or not. But it would sure answer a hell of a lot of questions and would single handedly stop anymore holy wars since we would all know once and for all who the true god was. Now THAT is a miracle. Some freakin blood Ina vile? Gimme a break.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah IF God were to show himself in all his glory one you would not have free will. it would be like denying the existence of the Sun you would see and feel it in your presence. God has shown just enough that if you seek him you will find him but if you don't you will not. IT is all a matter of Faith. I am 100% sure that God has never revealed him self in full before.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs That is a cop out. Simply showing that god exists doesn't eradicate free will. Just ask the people that jesus appeared to after his resurrection. Or the folks whom god appeared to in the old testament. It didn't affect their free will one bit. If he could do it to a few people, he can do it to everyone. Shoot, lucifer stood in the presence of god and STILL chose to deny him. So this whole "if god were to show himself it would destroy free will" nonsense is just that... nonsense.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah First of all God has often humbled himself before man to communicate with us. this humbled form of God is much different than the raw un mitigated God. I can not vouch for what happened when Lucifer rejected God, weather God had humbled himself there or not, but even if he didn't Humans and Angles are hardly on the same level.
tell me one time that God has shown his true self, I certainly can't think of any.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs is jesus not god now? When he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection, was he not god? I don't give two craps about who was humbled or not, communication is a form of revealing ones self.
I'll say it again: if god, the all powerful, all knowing, all good, all present being can do it to a few people, he can do it to everyone. The fact that he doesn't means either he doesn't care, or he doesn't exist.
and wait, you believe in angels too?
wow
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah You yourself said you were Catholic at one point, If you didn't believe in Angles then what did you think Lucifer was or Saint Michale The Arc-angle was.
Ignoring half of the situation (weather he was humbled or not) is very ignorant it makes a huge difference Holy Communion is God every time we have Mass except he is humbled. we are communicating right now and you have no idea what I look like and if it were not for the video I would be in the same situation.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs listen to yourself... you sound like a bad fantasy novel... where are the unicorns? where are the orcs and elves?
someone told you a bad bed time story, and you bought into it hook like and sinker.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you still didn't listen to what I was saying ...
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs You are implying that to suppose a supernatural cause in some observance is just as valid as trying to find a naturalistic cause. You are also suggesting that the universe had to be created by your personal god because you see design. Design = designer. You are also suggesting that if we don't know why something is/happens, then god's work is obviously there. Am i close?
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah yes I would re word that last sentence as "then god's work is obviously a possibility"
and also I would remove personal from god.
also this comment was more in reference to the part of the conversation about God humbling himself just before you started making fun of my beliefs.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I don't know why you are even still here. You have been reduced to admitting that only faith can help you find god, not evidence. I explained my feelings on faith. yet you still feel compelled to suggest that this will change my view You yourself said that "there can be no discussion on this topic if we share no common ground :)" so why are you still here? Have fun with your saints and vial of blood. But leave me and anyone else who doesn't want to share in you Tolkien story alone
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Oh i guess that comment didn't post. I said that Faith is only half of the equation.
Faith is like a tool you can use to help you find evidence just like trust in scientific hypothesis and principles helps one to find evidence in science.
Just like you I feel Compelled to correct ignorance. your rejection of God is my equivalent to the 2+2=5 that you wanted to correct.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs god IS the 2+2=5 equation. It is not logically sound nor does it have evidence supporting it. Sorry you are having trouble with that.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah You just admitted that you agree with the possibility of a creator that started the universe. that creator is the same thing as God there is no way around it. if a creator is a logical possibility then so is God
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn't a pathway to truth, Every religion has faith. Who is to distinguish what is true between judaism, islam, hinduism and mormanism if faith is your only measurement of truth? How is it that you use reason as a path to truth in every endeavour in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth, you say that faith is required. What kind of god requires faith instead of evidence? (cont)
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs(cont) and before you suggest that I or other atheists rely on "faith" as well, let me extinguish that thought right now. I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned. I will grant trust tentatively, I don't have faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they DON'T have evidence. If you can come up with something that I believe that I don't have evidence for, you know what? I'll stop believing it. It's called rationalism.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs (cont) When I was a catholic, I felt compelled to be the best catholic I could be, and represent the word of god to people who didn't believe. And because I cared whether my beliefs were true rather whether they FELT good, what I found was that my beliefs weren't justified. And when I asked people like you about why I couldn't find proper evidence to back up my ideology, I got the same answer you just gave me. "Faith". I'm sorry, but faith is not a virtue, it's gullibility.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah I don't know what kind of evidence you were looking for but you can't find scientific evidence for something outside of the physical universe that would be like using a thermometer to find your weight.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs That is a horrible platitude, and if that is all you have then I can't help you
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah lol you are just mad because you know it is right
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I'm not mad. It's just frustrating talking to a brick wall. Which apparently I have been doing for the past day or so
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah but you know my "Platitude" is right, right? and if what I said is right then little or no proof of God would exist in the Universe.
the only proof would be in the way it is designed. the universe like a work of art. It is possible that, by scattering paint on a canvas (matter into space) you would produce the Mona Lisa( the world / universe) but it is far more likely that it was painted that way.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs No, platitudes are inherently meaningless, which your statement was. I'm discovering a repeating theme here
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Yet again you dismiss what I am saying with no explanation other than I am wrong or what i said is meaningless. I think the reason you left the Catholic Faith was because you didn't understand the faith or like many people you wanted to justify something the church says is wrong. If you don't listen to what other people are saying and say you are right in every circumstance then no one can help you.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs And now you are using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You have officially hit a new level of theist predictability. I am listening to you find and dandy. Don't accuse me of ignoring your statements because you can't grasp the concept that if there is no natural explanation yet, that doesn't automatically mean a supernatural cause. Please look up "god of the gaps" and get back to me.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah The Gaps in science are where God is the prevalent it doesn't mean there is evidence out side of those "Gaps". You seem to spend a lot of time looking for evidence to support your argument, do you ever look for the evidence against it.
I have one last challenge for you. Try to prove Logic. keep in mind that you can not prove something with itself
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Try to prove love... logic doesn't need proof. It Is a human construct whereupon someone can formulate a formal systematic study of valid inference and correct reasoning. It uses reason, sound judgement, argumentation, and reliable inference. It is a practice that uses inductive and deductive reasoning. It is a method, not an ideology. Just the mere fact that you are asking to prove logic shows you know little of it. Again, no wonder you are a theist.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah sure logic is a method but how do you know it is the right method, something had to tell you that logic is correct? further more how do you know your reasoning is sound? what makes a valid inference while you are at it.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs You're kidding me right? Just look around you. If it wasnt for logic and reason, the computer you are on right now would not exist. We would never have broken earths gravity to land on the moon. We would have never eradicated polio or small pox. We would never have had the internet, or a basic understanding of our place in the universe. It is the right method because it has been tried and tested and proven to be the ONLY method that gives humanity the objective understanding (cont)
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you are proving Logic with Logic which is not proper. this is circular reasoning
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs You officially have not been paying attention. I told you I cannot prove logic. It is a method which has a very successful history. I am now making fun of not just your beliefs, but the fact that it takes you 4 times to understand something.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah I Think I am done with this conversation. you don't seem to read the entirety of what I am saying. You seem like you know what your looking for. you can't answer questions by simply contorting things to fit your view.
It has been a pleasure talking to you, Good bye
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Most ironic comment ever.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs (cont) ...about our world without superstition or magical thinking. There is a reason the last era where Christianity had control of western society was called the "dark ages". Logic can be tested, it can be falsified, it can be measured. Logic works. Period. I trust it because it works. period.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you avoided the question here too.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I keep on answering your questions. Because you didnt like the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs And now Anothr bad analogy. Youre really rounding all the bases. I have SEEN someone paint a painting. Simply because something appears to have design doesn't constitute a designer. Do you think crystals or snowflakes are designed one by one by a supernatural being? No. There are explained natural forces that are at play.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah and what caused those natural forces at the beginning?
sure, we have all seen some one paint something before but that is just it if you had a computer randomly arranging colors eventually you will get the same picture that so and so just painted. but just how likely is that to happen in fact it could never happen if the chance was reset for each new picture. however when you see a picture you assume someone painted it but when you see the world you say it happened at random.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I assume someone painted the picture because I have seen someone paint it. I can even read their signature. However there is no definitive answer as to what actually caused everything. No one does. Not even your holy books or priests. If anyone suggests that they know for certain, again, they are trying to sell you something. Sure, science has a few models that point to a natural cause, but we don't know for sure. Science is not afraid to say "I don't know". Its the most honest answer
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah a signature could be randomly generated just like the rest of the picture but you can be sure that some one painted a picture because it has patterns which fit together in a way that displays the likeness of something else. this art has a near zero% chance of happening on it's own and the perfect harmony that we see in the natural world is just as likely to have happened as that randomly generated picture. this suggest an intelligent creator of the universe
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Again. I have seen someone paint a painting. There have been many inferences where people have witnessed a painting being made. No One has witnessed a universe bent made. The only things we have to go on are the facts and evidence left behind. Simply becuse something is complex doesn't mean it had a designer. Assuming there is one is asinine.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah being complex and having clear patterns and organization are very different from each other.
so you are say that because you have seen some one paint a picture you now assume that every picture was made by some one.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Every painting had someone or something that created it yes.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah are you listening to what I am saying. You assume that every picture was "painted" by some one just because you saw a person paint a picture once.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I believe every painting was made by someone or something because there is precedent to justify this belief. No one has witnessed anyone or anything make a universe, so to assume this happened is magical thinking.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah this is a foolish argument we are having since neither of us has evidence that proves or disproves our point. any way this is my last comment so I just want to leave you or any body else that reads this comment with this: Listen to philosophical arguments, just because they are not based on scientific evidence doesn't invalidate the point they make. Also Materialist is a better title for you. not to say you are greedy but that you only believe in the physical part of things.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Materialist? Sure! I'm also a humanist, skeptic, pragmatist, realist, atheist, or whatever title you wanna labor me as. All I know is that I'm not the one making a positive claim here. The onus is on the one making the claim. If someone reacts with "prove it" or "I'm not convinced", it is not up to them to prove why they are skeptical but on the person who made the claim. It's not that hard.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah I have already proved my point nothing has disproved my arguments so its up to you to find more if you don't agree with it that is your problem.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs I love how you make sweeping blanket absolutist statements. "nothing has disproved my arguments"
Ok, have fun believing that little dollop of delusion as well. And while we're making platitudes, here's one for you: talking to you is like playing chess with a pigeon. You'll knock some pieces over, crap on the table, and then fly home to boast of your victory.
Thank you, come again.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah if my statement is false then what makes it false I sure don't see where I was disproved.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs which statement? the one where you said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "the universe looks designed so it must have had a designer"? or the one where "miracles have evidence even though it takes faith to believe in god"? or the one where you said "good bye"?
because so far there, pancho, not one of these have been right.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah IF my statement about the universe isn't right then you can't say that every painting was painted either (unless of course you have seen that particular picture has been painted)
I never said it takes Faith to believe in God. it takes faith in something weather it is Logic or Religion or both to find the truth.
see what I mean when I saw you are twisting my words to fit your argument.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs "god has shown just enough that if you seek him you will find him but if you don't you will not. IT is all a matter of faith" -sarsgarrs
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah yeah thats not saying you need faith to believe in God it does say that you need faith to prove him though.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Faith is belief without knowledge. It is believing when you have no evidence to belief. You canny use faith to then discover proof of it. That would no longer be faith. That would be "knowledge".
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah *cannot use faith.
Damn auto correct. I hate the iPhone.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Faith is trust. Just like you or I might have faith or trust in some one to do something a particular way. when in reference to a concept faith is the trust in the fundamentals of that concept. for Catholicism Faith is summed up by The Nicene Creed which is basically every thing revealed to man by God.
No I will agree it is not intelligent to believe in this. However it is just like Logic, it uses the truths given by the concept to prove its self in tests.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@eddygoombah the Catholic faith proves its legitimacy in the same way you described logic proving its own legitimacy.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@eddygoombah "The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them…. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed."
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs Anither meaningless Platitude. If you had any evidence, you wouldn't need faith. You're running yourself around in circles and you don't even know it. Have fun in your delusions. I thought you were leaving? Hmm...
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah If you are going to continue calling half of the things I say I say platitudes do you care to explain your reasoning? I don't care much for all of these insults you are throwing out at me, It really shows how mature you are.
Yeah I thought I was leaving too.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs The platitudes you are making are just that. Platitudes. I can't help what they are. You are the one typing them.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you said earlier that platitudes are meaningless statements. what made my statement meaningless. are you just throwing words out here hoping they will stumble me?
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs you are basically copy/pasting a nice sounding saying that adds nothing to the conversation. You might think it poignant in your solopsistic myopic perspective, but in the grand scheme of things, it's ultimately meaningless. "Believers are good and smart, non believers are bad and dumb... and they smell like farts" That's great... and? How does this help anything? What facts or evidence does this provide? nothing. It's just an empty platitude.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you are right I am coping and pasting hence the quotation marks. the fact that you call them platitudes is my own fault for not elaborating on those statements.
my statement is only saying that I (As a Christian) have not rejected any scientific evidence. for all I know the big Bang could have been how the universe was created I don't know the bible is very vague when it comes to the beginning of the universe all it really tells us is that God caused it.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@eddygoombah you (as an Atheist) on the other hand reject God and miracles on the doctrine that a supernatural causes are impossible you have no evidence to say that a supernatural cause is out of the question. all my quotation is saying is that you are close minded.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs If there were any reasonable verifiable evidence for any of that, there would be no need to reject them. You apparently have lower standards to prove things than I do.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah perhaps but it is also difficult to sum up every reason you believe something in a You tube comment.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@eddygoombah to additionally support my statement that Catholicism is not close minded to science; We bring in Atheist frequently when testing Miracles to see if they are real.
also When the Big Bang theory was first suggested by a Catholic Priest a large amount of the scientific community rejected it for a long time.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs and the fact that you would use it to support the side you are trying to take shows that you have little regard for actual logical discourse. I am not trying to stumble you. You are doing a good job of that yourself with little help from me. It has been obvious from the beginning that you aren't here to have a logical discussion. I consistently have enough real conversations with theists to know this. You simply want to type your cemented ideology, however poorly concocted, AT me
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs so go ahead. Try to guise your words with sincerity. You and I both know that you really don't care for any other perspective other than your own. This is the reason for why my responses are a little brash. Because you cannot grasp simple concepts like "the onus is on the person making a positive claim". Simply saying, "No, you don't get it. I am right" adds no weight to a debate. I don't despise theists, one of my heroes, Ken Miller, is a Catholic. You could learn something from him
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@sarsgarrs (cont) Bottom line: Evidence is what determines whether or not your perception of reality is reasonable and in conjunction with the world as it is. Anyone who says differently is trying to sell you something.
eddygoombah 11 months ago
@eddygoombah Yes but since neither of us has enough evidence to prove our perspectives then you have to make a decision. I chose Catholicism and religion because even if I am wrong and there is no God I don't have to worry about anything. You on the other hand may be right and, if so, you and I will have the same fate but if not you will be wrong and you will have a lot of trouble on your hands after death.
sarsgarrs 11 months ago