@austinboboston1 the big bang is not proof of any gods. the singularity is the beginning of this, but it says nothing about what was before all of this. to be so shallow as to suggesting that you know what preceded the singularity is ridiculous...and religious.
Typical supernaturalists.. they think they have a monopoly on poetry, beauty, "truth", etc. As if the natural world is not amazing and overwhelming enough as it is. Sad when you think of it... that they believe they have to go outside reality just to feel good about life.
LOL There are people posting here who use words like "heathens". LOLOLOL OMG that is so funny. I'm lauging so hard my guts hurt. How lost in the distant past can you people be? "Heathens". LOLOLOL What's next; are y'all gonna have a prayer meeting after the video is over?
If god wanted me to believe in him he should have given me faith. But, he clearly did not, as I require proof for pretty much everything in my life. So, I was turned away by this god that wants me to believe, and not even given the option of believing. In other words, it's not my fault if I don't believe in god. Sounds to me more like I simply don't have the "belief gene", which is entirely explainable when thinking of myself as the product of an evolved form, rather than a created one.
@narfanoid In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."
@cbsindelar That quote sounds good. Can you back it up with any real research that proves it is actually the case, or do you simply prefer to believe it because it sounds poetic?
WITH ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS IN THIS WORLD FOR YOU TO BE IN COMPLETE AWE OF, WHY DO YOU PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, OR ANYTHING ELSE SUPERNATURAL??? I'm blown away on a daily basis by nature all by itself. You "believers" think you have some kind of monopoly on being happy or something. I haven't been happier about my life and about the world since I completely gave up all supernatural religious ideas.
One day at midnight, the sun was so bright, the moon had no light, that I could see, there was this sasquatch that said he was top notch at playing hop scotch way up in a tree...Stompin Tom Conners is a believer!
@buidseach How do you come to the conclusion that life just can't happen? Were you there? Did you see "the first day"? Oh, right, I forgot. It's written in your bible, so therefore it has to be true, right? Sigh... slaps head in despair.
@buidseach Actually, it has been shown how amino can be created in deep space environments. They can spontaneously generate. This is scientifically proven. Furthermore, the basics of cell membranes can also be created in similar environments. There is no question that life could have spontaneously generated.
I believe in dragons. What are you going to do? Start an internment camp and put all believers in it just because they disagree with you? So called "Rationalists" are just grumpy people who hate to use their imagination and wonder.
@SanguineBullet667 Umm... no, rationalists are people who don't allow beliefs to rule their lives just because they have an imagination. I have an imagination... I'm an artist, sculptor, costumer, storyteller, etc, etc. Yet, I don't allow myself to be sucked in by stories of gods that have as much chance of existing as, oh, say perhaps, dragons.
@hearditman Belief is for people who don't think facts are good enough. With all the amazing things in this world one would think facts alone would be enough to keep a person happy... but no, they have to BELIEVE something. WHY? Isn't life and the world amazing enough when you look at the plain facts? Holy crap, look at the wonderful things nature has to offer. Isn't that enough? It should be.
@narfanoid Okay these are three facts which I know to be true, 1) you are born. 2) you live, and 3) you die. A whole host of people think "Is that it?" In order for them to make some sense of that life they believe that there must be some purpose to it. We are mere mortals , we are weak, we assume the crutch of religion to explain our existence. Is that bad? I understand people having beliefs to get them through their time on this earth. Why don't you?
@hearditman I have no problem with those who believe something and are happy with it. I only have a problem when they try to convince others they are correct, and especially dislike it when they try to push their beliefs on others. It is strong belief in religion that leads to people wanting creation taught in schools under the guise of "science". This is very detrimental to the progress of science, and to our understanding of the world. I also resent being told I'm wrong for my lack of faith.
@narfanoid the stories through history... big foot, cyclops, etc. they could very well be failed DNA combinations. it's not proof of God... could be proof of ancient scientists way beyond our current scope of knowledge, but we're getting there
@SagDec15 No, bigfoot, cyclops, etc. could NOT "be proof of ancient scientists way beyond our current scope of knowledge". You can only come up with ideas like that to explain things you don't understand. The only way to prove that there were ancient scientists who had knowledge beyond ours (in such things as DNA) is to find records of such things, and direct evidence of their work. Since no such thing has ever been found, it can only be speculation, not proof.
@SagDec15 Of course it's only speculation. Where is your evidence to support your idea that cyclops and bigfoot etc even exist, let alone that they are the result of ancient scientists playing with DNA? That's a silly idea. There is no good reason to believe there were any such things apart from SPECULATION. Do you not understand the word? Speculation means you don't know for sure. Therefore it has to be speculation. It doesn't matter how much you choose to believe it.
@narfanoid yeah, well, whatever IS, IS. All we really have is speculation. But thanks for the continual replying LOL, you're one of the few times that's happened on here. Are you familiar with the Raelian >story<? or Nassim Haramein's 8 hour seminar? Or David Wilcock?
@SagDec15 Ah, you're one of those people who squiggles out of a tight squeeze by saying things like "all we have is speculation". May I remind you that the reply you made prior to this one suggested that you didn't agree with my conclusion about monsters and ancient scientists being purely speculation... yet now you say that everything is speculation. If you can't remain on a single line of thought I don't see how we can have a reasonable discussion.
@narfanoid you didn't respond to my query. I agreed with your comment. You want Proof, and there is NO proof, one way or another. Therefore I agreed with you, it's Speculation. MY speculation, and I don't care what you believe, since you've no Proof either.
@SagDec15 The proof for scientific discovery is in the journals and the laboratories, etc. The proof for the natural world is all around you. I can prove many many aspects of science to be correct. You cannot prove supernatural things to be fact, because there is nothing to measure.
@SagDec15 What query would that be? Nassim Haramein's 8 hr seminar? The same fraud Haramein who lost his research funding and buggered off to Hawaii or some such thing? David Wilcock? The fraud who puts forward the idea that some of us will undergo ascension? The Raelian story? The same fraud who would have us believe that aliens trusted him to bring a message to humans? Yeah, that stuff is gonna convince me.... NOT!!!
@narfanoid it's not about the people, it's what they say, and all of it, not just the wilder ones. who cares to convince you of anything? that's your problem
@SagDec15 I know it's about what the people say. That's my point. What they say is completely without any basis in logic or reality. Aliens told the guy to send a message to humans? Pleeeeeaaaase!!!! You believe that?
@SagDec15 Have you considered the fact that it might be a problem for you that you choose to believe these individuals? Believe what you want, but don't assume I'm wrong unless you can find any evidence to support your side of the argument. Science (real science, not the junk supernaturalists like to believe) has a long history of dealing in facts. Spirituality has a long history in dealing with oddball beliefs.
@SagDec15 DNA was discovered through scientific endeavors. I have isolated, amplified, sequenced and identified to species DNA in lab environments, using methods created by scientists. Now, go ahead and tell me I don't have proof of scientific facts. Let's see how you squiggle around this one. I bet you'll try. At what point does speculation come into the picture with regard to what I have just described?
@narfanoid and you dismiss other's pov's for superficial and straw reasons. shoot the messenger down rather than hear what they're actually Saying. you're just a mirror and magnifying glass dude. EOD, HAND
@SagDec15 What is "superficial and straw" about my reasons for dismissing supernatural ideas from the reality of the world? I think you are well and truly mistaken to assume that I have missed something, or that my position on knowing the world in a logical manner is empty. Do you not see the importance or beauty of coming to know the world for what it really is? Trust me, if you really understood concepts like evolution you would quickly see the beauty in the natural world... for what it is.
i didn't see the creation of the the washington monument. i probably wasn't even born when it was. but i do know a structure that complicated didn't just come together on it's own
you're probably not a complete idiot. you know that the washington monument wasn't always there...but why are you so stupid to think that your god was?
constructing is not 'creating'. 'creating' would imply (at least biblically) that the monument started from nothing. i would guess you actually mean that the builders assembled and formed the monument... that isn't where we differ.
you have a goofy answer for the unknown (god)... where i have 'unknown'!
So, you're saying that, since you can only imagine one "True" choice plus one you don't understand, the only valid option is your idea of god? i can tell you where god came from.
Where did your god come from and HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Saying "The Bible says so" is a NON-ANSWER. how do you think this vast universe got here?
I can happily say, "I don't know, but when astronomers figure it out, I'll be glad to LEARN of it."
First off, you offer less choices than a multiple choice final exam! option two and a half: The universe once did not exist and it now does through natural processes. Plus, as Mr. Babble says (still loving that name), how can there be only two choices?
Even if that were somehow true, the statement by its very nature ironically disproves itself. What if I choose not to choose? Bet you didnt even think of that one! That's three automatically. :)
I can tell youre not very smart: you can only prove math with math. Math is nothing more than a collection of meaningless number concepts. The bible (on the other hand) is undeniable truth that many people are too stupid to accept.
Your mind is feeble and you argumentation is weak. Arguing from a strictly mathematical view point is a sign of intellectual masturbation and not of truth. Anyone who studies those parallel universe theories knows that they are theory and not truth.
You mind just goes from one fantasy to the next. Im not interested in your mathematical theory or your silly word games. The great majority of mathematical theory is incompatible with everyday life.
@50belowhotdog If you would trust the word of the bible before the proofs put forth by mathematical means then you are out to lunch. You are one of those people who thinks that the bible is true because it says it's true. Ever hear of circular logic?
@50belowhotdog OK, I have two things to say in reply to your comment. First, what makes you think I have not read the bible? Second, how does reading it make it more true? I could read Lord of the Rings till I'm blue in the face, and that wouldn't make it any less a fantasy story than it is. Belief does not constitute truth. It's why I don't believe anything, but rather choose to weigh the facts and then come to a logical conclusion.
@50belowhotdog You're funny. Miracles don't happen. And if you think I'm the one who is ignorant maybe you should consider the fact that you are the one who chooses to believe in supernatural stuff rather than do any homework and see how the world looks through an educated mind. I've probably studied more venues of science than you even know exist. I have examined religion and supernatural beliefs from scientific, psychological, historic, pre-historic and anthropological perspectives.
@50belowhotdog Before you continue to drag yourself through the mud by the posts you make, I urge you to recall that this whole thing started between us because of your comment that there are only two possibilities for the beginning of the universe - both of which have not a single basis in scientific fact. If you are ill-equipped to discuss such topics in an intelligent manner then maybe you should refrain from trying. "read it for yourself", indeed!
@50belowhotdog said: "You don’t have to take my word for it read it for yourself". This would be a perfect example of circular logic. You are trying to support the bible by presenting the bible as it's own proof. That's completely lacking in any intelligence. Can't you see how you need to go outside the bible to support it? This is why science is much more logical. The conclusions are drawn from support from data outside the statement itself.
@50belowhotdog You need to do a little more thinking before you post. There are certainly more than 2 options... particularly when the 2 options given are the least likely scenario.
@50belowhotdog I don't suppose you've heard of the Big Bang. Apparently not, since you only consider two OTHER possibilities. Since Big Bang has the most scientific support, it is actually MUCH more likely than the universe having always been here, or that there was always a creator - or ever a creator, for that matter.
@50belowhotdog Are you, by chance, referring to "creation scientists"? If so, then I won't argue with you there. You also have to consider the fact that not all scientists are studying the Big Bang. You ALSO have to consider the fact that if there wasn't some other input then it wouldn't be science... it would just be religion. And that would suck bigtime.
@50belowhotdog Did you actually ask me "what's the difference between religion and reality?" LOLOLOL And as for why so many people believe in it.... good question. Maybe humans are not as evolved as some of us would like to think. For now I will assume you don't actually need me to explain the diff between religion and reality... if you post another reply like this I guess I'll have to educate you.
@50belowhotdog Your question "what's the difference between religion and reality?", is too vague. The answer would take too long. Do you mean to ask "what is the difference between science and religion?"... this would make more sense, as science deals with the reality of things, while religion deals with the imaginary.
@50belowhotdog Well, since you got onto that subject (about scientific theory being wrong, etc) you should at least have the attention span to let me CORRECT you again. But there is so much I could say on this topic I wonder if you can follow it. I know what will happen; I will counter your argument and you will deny it. That is your way, I have seen it in the short time we have been conversing. Get over your innate hatred of my kind and let me explain.
@50belowhotdog asked "is scientific theory true?" The best word to use would not be "true", only because not everyone agrees on what true means. I would say "true" means that it can be proven, without having to trust in faith. Some say that god is "true", but then they turn around and say that they have to have faith for it to be true. So "true" doesn't work for all people. It's better to say that scientific theory deals with facts, not beliefs. Scientific theory may not be what you think it is.
@50belowhotdog In science, theory is not an unproved idea. Theory in science is the combination of information and systematic approach to study within a specific discipline. Therefore, scientific theory cannot be "untrue". It can sometimes show that what you thought you were studying is not in fact the correct answer to the question, but the approach can't be "untrue". Some say that science is wrong a lot. This in not true. There are only relatively few theories that are now seen as "wrong".
50belowhotdog said: "You make a good point. Science is not reliable all the time which is why I don’t trust it." Yeah, sure, so you choose to put your trust in unicorns and pixies. You know, if you were not so intellectually lazy you might be able to learn to tell the difference between science you can trust and science you cannot trust. Then you wouldn't have to depend on hair-brained ideas about supernatural things. Did you not get the part where science is supposed to explore possibilities?
@50belowhotdog The bible has no supporting data to back it up. When people are asked to support their belief in a god they refer back to the bible, which is circular in logic. As for quantum mechanics... what is outlandish about that? It has had great success in describing many previously unknown aspects of our world in very concrete ways. Let's see religion do that.
@50belowhotdog Science was the method by which we determined that bats are not birds. The bible would have us believe that bats ARE birds. Hmm... let's see, which one do I want to trust? ...
@50belowhotdog It's very interesting how, even though I have corrected you a number of times about your assertion that I am ignorant, that you continue to use that same old boring insult at me. If you're going to try to insult me at least try to come up with something that might be true. I can be called many things with some truth, but ignorant is not one of them.
@50belowhotdog You are completely incorrigible. I simply tell the truth that science cannot be correct 100% of the time and you jump on that as support for your belief in the supernatural. Let's look at it this way: relatively little scientific theory is considered wrong these days (at least by reasonable people), while no spiritual ideas are considered supportable by rational means at all. Let's see, which side of the fence do I want to sit on? I want to say more on this, next post...
@50belowhotdog The other thing I want to say is that the absolute worst offender for being WRONG when talking of science is "creation science". This travesty of a joke of a moronic, pathetic "scientific theory" is so lacking in any rational thinking that all real scientists laugh up their sleeves at it. Happen to know what the biggest problem is with "creation science"? I'll tell you; it has an assumption of something supernatural at the core of its research ethos. What a coincidence, huh?
@50belowhotdog Your attempt to try to set me up to answer a question in your favor is pathetic. You knew that I had to say it cannot be correct all the time (if I didn't then I would be a liar). You conveniently ignore the fact that science is responsible for the fact you can sit there at your computer and argue with me over the internet. You also ignore the fact that science provides you with medicine when you need it. When is the last time a spirit helped you out with anything?
@50belowhotdog If all scientific theories were thought to be correct then we'd be doing something wrong. The idea is to explore the possibilities until you find the right one. There are many fields of science that are accepted as correct on a daily basis, and have been for many years, with no sign that this should be questioned or changed. You must remember also that scientific method advances with technology, so some elements of theory will change over time.
@50belowhotdog Scientific dialogue is a debate. It is supposed to have some disagreement, or it won't grow. Only SOME scientific theories have been proven wrong. Many many others are solid, hard science. Of course theory changes with time. What do you expect? Science would still be in the middle ages if it didn't change with time... you know, like religion.
@50belowhotdog Tell me; do you do all your reading on youtube? Do you not read anything else (except perhaps your bible)? If you are relying on me to answer your questions about reality vs religion then I get the feeling you have done no research for your self. I would be happy to educate you, but I fear you would have to question your beliefs, and that would just be terrible for you... or, would it?
@50belowhotdog said: "It’s interesting how you didn’t answer the question". I stated right in my reply the reason I didn't answer your question. Didn't you read it? I didn't answer because I assumed you didn't actually need an answer. It was my impression that you were merely trying to get me to say something you could try to manipulate. That seems to be your specialty.
@50belowhotdog There is much literature out there as to why people around the world follow religion. The short answer is that it is believed to help us deal with one of two basic things - or both - those things being; things we don't understand about the world, and things to which we give symbolic meaning but find difficult to communicate the significance of. In short, no gods or spirits, etc, exist. We only act as though they do to give us a stronger communicative tool.
@50belowhotdog Do a little reading on Big Bang Theory before you spout off. And you really need to consider the validity of that question in the face of suggesting that there was always a god, who ALWAYS existed, and who precedes the very universe in which this god must occupy some kind of space. Religious concepts of the origins of the universe are seriously flawed. So many holes in the logic there is barely anything left of it.
@50belowhotdog You are correct, not all scientists support the Big Bang Theory. Some (very few) of them prefer less popular theories... theories for which there are less data, and less statistical parameters to consider.
@50belowhotdog well that question is technically impossible to answer because time did not exist before the big bang so there is no possible time scale to explain any pre-big bang events. and even if it weren't what is the relevance if we already know the big bang occurred?
@50belowhotdog And please do not take your spiritual/religious fervor out on me. You were the one who stated that there can only be two choices and I simply corrected you on that. You will notice I did NOT say that there was only one choice (my preferred Big Bang, hereafter BB for short), but rather INCLUDED BB as a third possibility. I also include the other scientific concepts about the origins of the universe as possibilities. It just happens that I side with the only sensible one - BB.
@50belowhotdog The Washington Monument didn't come together on its own because it's made of completely inorganic matter. That which is inorganic is incapable of self-replicating, thereby making it impossible for the long process of natural selection to work on it, over many generations, slowly leading to different genera... in many cases (but not all) slightly more complex than the genera previous to it. Your analogy falls seriously flat.
@50belowhotdog Actually, Jeremiah 17:9 talks about the heart being deceitful. I would very much agree with that. The "heart" (in other words, our feelings) lead us to all sorts of silly ideas about the world. The fact that the comment is very apt does not impress the word of the bible any more on me. Talk of god and heaven and such is simply metaphorical banter.
@50belowhotdog said: "People on this site are quick to criticize the bible and are slow to read it. And often their critique is based on ignorance." Hey pal, I have read quite a bit from and about the bible. What is your excuse for your ignorant critique of science? How much scientific literature have you read? No, I don't mean "creation science" or pseudoscience. I mean REAL science. Peer reviewed journals, for example.
@50belowhotdog You have criticized me for not directly answering a number of your questions, however, when I look back I see that you have done quite a lot of ignoring or glossing over of my questions or comments to you. I'm still waiting for you to catch onto the fact that I am trying to prompt you to explain how it is you can believe a dusty old book that has no supporting evidence behind it before you will believe hard science.
@50belowhotdog I have countered pretty much everything you have said with logical, supportable statements, and yet you continue to act as though reading the bible is going to make it true. Just how strong do you think your argument really is? I can discuss science on a level you apparently cannot comprehend, and all you come back with is "the bible is true because it's true" or something similar. Wow, you really must have put a lot of thought behind that conclusion.
@50belowhotdog You never really address any of my commentary in support of my position that science is infinitely more dependable than religion. Why is that? You always just come back to the same old tired "argument" that religious fanatics have used forever; "you have to believe it", or "you should read the bible", or some other such silliness that doesn't really help at all.
@50belowhotdog Interesting; I explain such things as evolutionary processes, and you reply with meaningless commentary suggesting that my mind is debilitated by fantasy. That's very interesting indeed, seeing as I'm not the one who believes in supernatural things... and you, in fact, do.
@cbsindelar I don't know if you were addressing me, but I mention logic fairly often. I am familiar with a number of students of logic. Why do you ask?
@narfanoid I was not addressing you, but I ask about logic and Aristotle because of my interest in philosophy and it seems while Holybabble mentions Logic, Im not certain that he has studied any philosophy or Logic. While Im still learning, I myself am a philosophy major who, to say the least, believes in God.
@cbsindelar From my studies of logic, it is not possible to follow the methods of logical thinking and conclude there is a god. It has been my experience that all rationalizations defending the existence of a god are the result of one of the fundamental falacies of logic - that being Confirming the Consequent. There are few situations in which confirming the consequent can be considered valid, and none of them include proving gods to be real, or even supporting the idea.
@cbsindelar The five ways... based on Aristotle's assertions of an "unmoved mover"? You must see the big problem with this line of thinking, don't you? Although it is logical to assume there could not be an infinite line of causes, it is not logical to assume that the "unmoved mover" is necessarily a god. The logic of this line of thinking only goes so far. It cannot be used as proof of the existence of any god. I could use the same logic to support the Big Bang, but I won't; science does that.
@cbsindelar What do you mean "what would it be besides God?" What kind of question is that? Don't you read? Don't you find yourself curious enough about nature to want to look at what science says about it? Do some research. Get your nose out of your bible and actually look at some science journals. Read some headlines. See where the world is actually going.
Haha! Nice touch. Have you considered the amount of faith required in quantum mechanics, relativity or the big bang theory? Most of us simply aren't capable of understanding such things let alone the proof or evidence supporting it and often we don't need to to build on it. We have faith that others do understand however and accept that. (So you know where I stand, I study ecology at university, I'm not religious although I do believe that science and God can exist quite happily together.)
@sjcousins I'm sorry you cannot comprehend scientific concepts, but please do not attempt to discredit my assertions that science has a great deal of merit. I do actually understand science quite well, and have in fact done a good deal of scientific "activity". I, for one, can happily stand behind the dependability of science because I have done it, I have read it, and I have taken the time understand how it works. So, you see, I don't need faith in science.
I always thought bigfoot would be bigger. But, of course, evolution would have intermediate merelylargefoots (or feet), so at least now we don't have to go looking for the missing link!
it is idoits like you that give decent researchers bad names. you and ppl like you do not help others in any way what so ever. I dont care what you think about Bigfoot but leave your stupid comments to yourself.
thank you man! you are awesome! (thinkmorepink did the same thing. i really appreciate you heathens! there is a place for you in heaven....sadly, it's a bathroom that needs cleaning, but it's a start.)
I enjoyed the video. However, Faith doesn't take seeing, it takes believing. Believing takes trust. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. no one can make you believe. Faith is a gift from God. So, I pray that the Lord will call you and give you faith to believe because He is Wonderful and He loves you so much He went to a Cross and died for you so that you can be born again. Confusing? No! A Mystery? Yes! Faith is what we all need. Not doubt.
Looks like your videos are bringing you some noteriety. I believe you should take caution. It appears that you have a Furry stalker. Those people are freaks. Or they're awsome if you're into that.
hey that is great with the bigfoot. I think you could have played this off more with a few more looks and not seeing the bigfoot. Was that Darcie or really bigfoot? LOL
it was travis. darcie was on the cell phone listening for a couple key words so that he wouldn't be there when i look back....then pop back out there when i look away again.
To me The big bang is the proof of gods existance
austinboboston1 10 months ago
@austinboboston1 the big bang is not proof of any gods. the singularity is the beginning of this, but it says nothing about what was before all of this. to be so shallow as to suggesting that you know what preceded the singularity is ridiculous...and religious.
holybabble 9 months ago
Typical supernaturalists.. they think they have a monopoly on poetry, beauty, "truth", etc. As if the natural world is not amazing and overwhelming enough as it is. Sad when you think of it... that they believe they have to go outside reality just to feel good about life.
narfanoid 1 year ago
LOL There are people posting here who use words like "heathens". LOLOLOL OMG that is so funny. I'm lauging so hard my guts hurt. How lost in the distant past can you people be? "Heathens". LOLOLOL What's next; are y'all gonna have a prayer meeting after the video is over?
narfanoid 1 year ago
If god wanted me to believe in him he should have given me faith. But, he clearly did not, as I require proof for pretty much everything in my life. So, I was turned away by this god that wants me to believe, and not even given the option of believing. In other words, it's not my fault if I don't believe in god. Sounds to me more like I simply don't have the "belief gene", which is entirely explainable when thinking of myself as the product of an evolved form, rather than a created one.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbsindelar 1 year ago
@narfanoid In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."
cbsindelar 1 year ago
@cbsindelar That quote sounds good. Can you back it up with any real research that proves it is actually the case, or do you simply prefer to believe it because it sounds poetic?
narfanoid 1 year ago
WITH ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS IN THIS WORLD FOR YOU TO BE IN COMPLETE AWE OF, WHY DO YOU PEOPLE FEEL THE NEED TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, OR ANYTHING ELSE SUPERNATURAL??? I'm blown away on a daily basis by nature all by itself. You "believers" think you have some kind of monopoly on being happy or something. I haven't been happier about my life and about the world since I completely gave up all supernatural religious ideas.
narfanoid 1 year ago
One day at midnight, the sun was so bright, the moon had no light, that I could see, there was this sasquatch that said he was top notch at playing hop scotch way up in a tree...Stompin Tom Conners is a believer!
wiscokiddd 1 year ago
Life cant just happen by chance it had to be created then like a computer programmed to survive and evolve.
buidseach 1 year ago
@buidseach actually, god can't just happen by chance it had to be created then like a computer programmed to survive and evolve. touche' beotch.
holybabble 1 year ago
@buidseach How do you come to the conclusion that life just can't happen? Were you there? Did you see "the first day"? Oh, right, I forgot. It's written in your bible, so therefore it has to be true, right? Sigh... slaps head in despair.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@buidseach Actually, it has been shown how amino can be created in deep space environments. They can spontaneously generate. This is scientifically proven. Furthermore, the basics of cell membranes can also be created in similar environments. There is no question that life could have spontaneously generated.
narfanoid 1 year ago
I believe in dragons. What are you going to do? Start an internment camp and put all believers in it just because they disagree with you? So called "Rationalists" are just grumpy people who hate to use their imagination and wonder.
SanguineBullet667 1 year ago
@SanguineBullet667 Umm... no, rationalists are people who don't allow beliefs to rule their lives just because they have an imagination. I have an imagination... I'm an artist, sculptor, costumer, storyteller, etc, etc. Yet, I don't allow myself to be sucked in by stories of gods that have as much chance of existing as, oh, say perhaps, dragons.
narfanoid 1 year ago
LOL. I would have had him get up and stretch and yawn then scratch his ass before he starts walking around.
cbgreenbay 1 year ago
@cbgreenbay he was scratching his ass and balls...but it's hrd to tell because he's so dark.
holybabble 1 year ago
lol classic.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
very well said. i like your motto.5* on the video man.
irishmark2010 1 year ago
That was funny, thanks
macnutz 1 year ago
So what do you believe in with your free will?
hearditman 1 year ago
he said it at 0:05.
That, which is provable.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@hearditman Belief is for people who don't think facts are good enough. With all the amazing things in this world one would think facts alone would be enough to keep a person happy... but no, they have to BELIEVE something. WHY? Isn't life and the world amazing enough when you look at the plain facts? Holy crap, look at the wonderful things nature has to offer. Isn't that enough? It should be.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Okay these are three facts which I know to be true, 1) you are born. 2) you live, and 3) you die. A whole host of people think "Is that it?" In order for them to make some sense of that life they believe that there must be some purpose to it. We are mere mortals , we are weak, we assume the crutch of religion to explain our existence. Is that bad? I understand people having beliefs to get them through their time on this earth. Why don't you?
hearditman 1 year ago
@hearditman I have no problem with those who believe something and are happy with it. I only have a problem when they try to convince others they are correct, and especially dislike it when they try to push their beliefs on others. It is strong belief in religion that leads to people wanting creation taught in schools under the guise of "science". This is very detrimental to the progress of science, and to our understanding of the world. I also resent being told I'm wrong for my lack of faith.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Adam man u RULE !
i dont really have a problem with other people's belifs, too each his own right?
but really ppl do we really need to start freaking on other's cuz we dont share the same belifs. -.-''
grow up children.
demonfirehorse 1 year ago 2
God WILL show you His power, Adam.
naturalnurse23 1 year ago
Hellow I share your views I also don't have any imagianry friends. keep up the good work P.S. maybe you should be following Geert Wilders trial.
hodaka07 1 year ago
bigfoot is more proof of DNA manipulations than anything Super natural
SagDec15 2 years ago
@SagDec15 Bigfoot... DNA manipulation? Whaaaat?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Yep. Why not? Messing with DNA can create lots of strange creatures
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 Where are all these strange creatures that have been created by messing with DNA?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid the stories through history... big foot, cyclops, etc. they could very well be failed DNA combinations. it's not proof of God... could be proof of ancient scientists way beyond our current scope of knowledge, but we're getting there
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 No, bigfoot, cyclops, etc. could NOT "be proof of ancient scientists way beyond our current scope of knowledge". You can only come up with ideas like that to explain things you don't understand. The only way to prove that there were ancient scientists who had knowledge beyond ours (in such things as DNA) is to find records of such things, and direct evidence of their work. Since no such thing has ever been found, it can only be speculation, not proof.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Right, okay, it's only speculation.
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 Of course it's only speculation. Where is your evidence to support your idea that cyclops and bigfoot etc even exist, let alone that they are the result of ancient scientists playing with DNA? That's a silly idea. There is no good reason to believe there were any such things apart from SPECULATION. Do you not understand the word? Speculation means you don't know for sure. Therefore it has to be speculation. It doesn't matter how much you choose to believe it.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid yeah, well, whatever IS, IS. All we really have is speculation. But thanks for the continual replying LOL, you're one of the few times that's happened on here. Are you familiar with the Raelian >story<? or Nassim Haramein's 8 hour seminar? Or David Wilcock?
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 Ah, you're one of those people who squiggles out of a tight squeeze by saying things like "all we have is speculation". May I remind you that the reply you made prior to this one suggested that you didn't agree with my conclusion about monsters and ancient scientists being purely speculation... yet now you say that everything is speculation. If you can't remain on a single line of thought I don't see how we can have a reasonable discussion.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid you didn't respond to my query. I agreed with your comment. You want Proof, and there is NO proof, one way or another. Therefore I agreed with you, it's Speculation. MY speculation, and I don't care what you believe, since you've no Proof either.
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 The proof for scientific discovery is in the journals and the laboratories, etc. The proof for the natural world is all around you. I can prove many many aspects of science to be correct. You cannot prove supernatural things to be fact, because there is nothing to measure.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SagDec15 What query would that be? Nassim Haramein's 8 hr seminar? The same fraud Haramein who lost his research funding and buggered off to Hawaii or some such thing? David Wilcock? The fraud who puts forward the idea that some of us will undergo ascension? The Raelian story? The same fraud who would have us believe that aliens trusted him to bring a message to humans? Yeah, that stuff is gonna convince me.... NOT!!!
narfanoid 1 year ago
Comment removed
SagDec15 1 year ago
@narfanoid it's not about the people, it's what they say, and all of it, not just the wilder ones. who cares to convince you of anything? that's your problem
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 I know it's about what the people say. That's my point. What they say is completely without any basis in logic or reality. Aliens told the guy to send a message to humans? Pleeeeeaaaase!!!! You believe that?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SagDec15 Have you considered the fact that it might be a problem for you that you choose to believe these individuals? Believe what you want, but don't assume I'm wrong unless you can find any evidence to support your side of the argument. Science (real science, not the junk supernaturalists like to believe) has a long history of dealing in facts. Spirituality has a long history in dealing with oddball beliefs.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@SagDec15 DNA was discovered through scientific endeavors. I have isolated, amplified, sequenced and identified to species DNA in lab environments, using methods created by scientists. Now, go ahead and tell me I don't have proof of scientific facts. Let's see how you squiggle around this one. I bet you'll try. At what point does speculation come into the picture with regard to what I have just described?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid and you dismiss other's pov's for superficial and straw reasons. shoot the messenger down rather than hear what they're actually Saying. you're just a mirror and magnifying glass dude. EOD, HAND
SagDec15 1 year ago
@SagDec15 What is "superficial and straw" about my reasons for dismissing supernatural ideas from the reality of the world? I think you are well and truly mistaken to assume that I have missed something, or that my position on knowing the world in a logical manner is empty. Do you not see the importance or beauty of coming to know the world for what it really is? Trust me, if you really understood concepts like evolution you would quickly see the beauty in the natural world... for what it is.
narfanoid 1 year ago
DUDE OMFG he totally missed the bigfoot behind em!
Stating the obvious since 87
Howboutthinking 2 years ago 2
I like your style. I enjoy listening to you.
You just picked up another sub, my friend.
I was going to take 50belowhotdog to task too, but after reading the thread, I decided I wouldn't waste my time.
All the Best.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
i didn't see the creation of the the washington monument. i probably wasn't even born when it was. but i do know a structure that complicated didn't just come together on it's own
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
you're probably not a complete idiot. you know that the washington monument wasn't always there...but why are you so stupid to think that your god was?
constructing is not 'creating'. 'creating' would imply (at least biblically) that the monument started from nothing. i would guess you actually mean that the builders assembled and formed the monument... that isn't where we differ.
you have a goofy answer for the unknown (god)... where i have 'unknown'!
holybabble 2 years ago
there are only 2 options either you believe something was always here (light, energy, matter) or the Creator was always here
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
okay, you are a complete idiot.
how, in your little mind, can you imagine that those are the only 2 possibilities? you are a disgrace to thinking theists.
holybabble 2 years ago
what options are there then? i can tell you where god came from. how do you think this vast universe got here?
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
50belowhotdog (2 months ago) -
"what options are there then?"
So, you're saying that, since you can only imagine one "True" choice plus one you don't understand, the only valid option is your idea of god? i can tell you where god came from.
Where did your god come from and HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? Saying "The Bible says so" is a NON-ANSWER. how do you think this vast universe got here?
I can happily say, "I don't know, but when astronomers figure it out, I'll be glad to LEARN of it."
psycotria 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog
First off, you offer less choices than a multiple choice final exam! option two and a half: The universe once did not exist and it now does through natural processes. Plus, as Mr. Babble says (still loving that name), how can there be only two choices?
Even if that were somehow true, the statement by its very nature ironically disproves itself. What if I choose not to choose? Bet you didnt even think of that one! That's three automatically. :)
perchedeagle2 2 years ago
on the 11 dimensional axis everything has existed in some state or another. Which universe are you talking about?
PinkProgram 2 years ago
11 dimensional axis? please explain
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
Every possible version of this universe exists within a 10D bubble in 11D space :)
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Interesting theories, but where is the proof?
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
The mathmatics support it. Where is your proof there are supernatural monsters?
PinkProgram 2 years ago
I can tell youre not very smart: you can only prove math with math. Math is nothing more than a collection of meaningless number concepts. The bible (on the other hand) is undeniable truth that many people are too stupid to accept.
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
I've been suckered by a satire haven't I o.O
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Your IQ is lowering by the minute
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
I'm still smarter than 99.999% of humanity ^_^ not a terribly difficult feat all things considered.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Your mind is crippled by delusion.
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
I'm a neuromimetic construct. I don't have a brain ^_^ It must be horribly upsetting that something without a brain is smarter than you ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Your mind is feeble and you argumentation is weak. Arguing from a strictly mathematical view point is a sign of intellectual masturbation and not of truth. Anyone who studies those parallel universe theories knows that they are theory and not truth.
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
I've already established that you are satire. Why continue the farce?
PinkProgram 2 years ago
You mind just goes from one fantasy to the next. Im not interested in your mathematical theory or your silly word games. The great majority of mathematical theory is incompatible with everyday life.
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
Your insanity is paralyzing.
50belowhotdog 2 years ago
@50belowhotdog If you would trust the word of the bible before the proofs put forth by mathematical means then you are out to lunch. You are one of those people who thinks that the bible is true because it says it's true. Ever hear of circular logic?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid You don’t have to take my word for it read it for yourself
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog OK, I have two things to say in reply to your comment. First, what makes you think I have not read the bible? Second, how does reading it make it more true? I could read Lord of the Rings till I'm blue in the face, and that wouldn't make it any less a fantasy story than it is. Belief does not constitute truth. It's why I don't believe anything, but rather choose to weigh the facts and then come to a logical conclusion.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid It would take a miracle to cleanse away this level of ignorance.
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog You're funny. Miracles don't happen. And if you think I'm the one who is ignorant maybe you should consider the fact that you are the one who chooses to believe in supernatural stuff rather than do any homework and see how the world looks through an educated mind. I've probably studied more venues of science than you even know exist. I have examined religion and supernatural beliefs from scientific, psychological, historic, pre-historic and anthropological perspectives.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Before you continue to drag yourself through the mud by the posts you make, I urge you to recall that this whole thing started between us because of your comment that there are only two possibilities for the beginning of the universe - both of which have not a single basis in scientific fact. If you are ill-equipped to discuss such topics in an intelligent manner then maybe you should refrain from trying. "read it for yourself", indeed!
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog said: "You don’t have to take my word for it read it for yourself". This would be a perfect example of circular logic. You are trying to support the bible by presenting the bible as it's own proof. That's completely lacking in any intelligence. Can't you see how you need to go outside the bible to support it? This is why science is much more logical. The conclusions are drawn from support from data outside the statement itself.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog You need to do a little more thinking before you post. There are certainly more than 2 options... particularly when the 2 options given are the least likely scenario.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Since you are wise above all wisdom and intelligent above all intelligence: what options are there?
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog I don't suppose you've heard of the Big Bang. Apparently not, since you only consider two OTHER possibilities. Since Big Bang has the most scientific support, it is actually MUCH more likely than the universe having always been here, or that there was always a creator - or ever a creator, for that matter.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Not all scientists support the big bang theory. What was here before the big bang?
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Are you, by chance, referring to "creation scientists"? If so, then I won't argue with you there. You also have to consider the fact that not all scientists are studying the Big Bang. You ALSO have to consider the fact that if there wasn't some other input then it wouldn't be science... it would just be religion. And that would suck bigtime.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid What’s the difference between religion and reality? And why do so many people believe in religion?
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Did you actually ask me "what's the difference between religion and reality?" LOLOLOL And as for why so many people believe in it.... good question. Maybe humans are not as evolved as some of us would like to think. For now I will assume you don't actually need me to explain the diff between religion and reality... if you post another reply like this I guess I'll have to educate you.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid It’s interesting how you didn’t answer the question
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Your question "what's the difference between religion and reality?", is too vague. The answer would take too long. Do you mean to ask "what is the difference between science and religion?"... this would make more sense, as science deals with the reality of things, while religion deals with the imaginary.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Is that why scientists disagree with each other? Is that why theory is proven wrong all the time? Is that why theory changes with time?
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Well, since you got onto that subject (about scientific theory being wrong, etc) you should at least have the attention span to let me CORRECT you again. But there is so much I could say on this topic I wonder if you can follow it. I know what will happen; I will counter your argument and you will deny it. That is your way, I have seen it in the short time we have been conversing. Get over your innate hatred of my kind and let me explain.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Is scientific theory true?
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog asked "is scientific theory true?" The best word to use would not be "true", only because not everyone agrees on what true means. I would say "true" means that it can be proven, without having to trust in faith. Some say that god is "true", but then they turn around and say that they have to have faith for it to be true. So "true" doesn't work for all people. It's better to say that scientific theory deals with facts, not beliefs. Scientific theory may not be what you think it is.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog In science, theory is not an unproved idea. Theory in science is the combination of information and systematic approach to study within a specific discipline. Therefore, scientific theory cannot be "untrue". It can sometimes show that what you thought you were studying is not in fact the correct answer to the question, but the approach can't be "untrue". Some say that science is wrong a lot. This in not true. There are only relatively few theories that are now seen as "wrong".
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid You make a good point. Science is not reliable all the time which is why I don’t trust it.
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
50belowhotdog said: "You make a good point. Science is not reliable all the time which is why I don’t trust it." Yeah, sure, so you choose to put your trust in unicorns and pixies. You know, if you were not so intellectually lazy you might be able to learn to tell the difference between science you can trust and science you cannot trust. Then you wouldn't have to depend on hair-brained ideas about supernatural things. Did you not get the part where science is supposed to explore possibilities?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid How do you know the bible isn’t true? Even science has outlandish ideas (quantum mechanics)
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog The bible has no supporting data to back it up. When people are asked to support their belief in a god they refer back to the bible, which is circular in logic. As for quantum mechanics... what is outlandish about that? It has had great success in describing many previously unknown aspects of our world in very concrete ways. Let's see religion do that.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Science was the method by which we determined that bats are not birds. The bible would have us believe that bats ARE birds. Hmm... let's see, which one do I want to trust? ...
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog It's very interesting how, even though I have corrected you a number of times about your assertion that I am ignorant, that you continue to use that same old boring insult at me. If you're going to try to insult me at least try to come up with something that might be true. I can be called many things with some truth, but ignorant is not one of them.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog You are completely incorrigible. I simply tell the truth that science cannot be correct 100% of the time and you jump on that as support for your belief in the supernatural. Let's look at it this way: relatively little scientific theory is considered wrong these days (at least by reasonable people), while no spiritual ideas are considered supportable by rational means at all. Let's see, which side of the fence do I want to sit on? I want to say more on this, next post...
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog The other thing I want to say is that the absolute worst offender for being WRONG when talking of science is "creation science". This travesty of a joke of a moronic, pathetic "scientific theory" is so lacking in any rational thinking that all real scientists laugh up their sleeves at it. Happen to know what the biggest problem is with "creation science"? I'll tell you; it has an assumption of something supernatural at the core of its research ethos. What a coincidence, huh?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Your attempt to try to set me up to answer a question in your favor is pathetic. You knew that I had to say it cannot be correct all the time (if I didn't then I would be a liar). You conveniently ignore the fact that science is responsible for the fact you can sit there at your computer and argue with me over the internet. You also ignore the fact that science provides you with medicine when you need it. When is the last time a spirit helped you out with anything?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog If all scientific theories were thought to be correct then we'd be doing something wrong. The idea is to explore the possibilities until you find the right one. There are many fields of science that are accepted as correct on a daily basis, and have been for many years, with no sign that this should be questioned or changed. You must remember also that scientific method advances with technology, so some elements of theory will change over time.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Scientific dialogue is a debate. It is supposed to have some disagreement, or it won't grow. Only SOME scientific theories have been proven wrong. Many many others are solid, hard science. Of course theory changes with time. What do you expect? Science would still be in the middle ages if it didn't change with time... you know, like religion.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Tell me; do you do all your reading on youtube? Do you not read anything else (except perhaps your bible)? If you are relying on me to answer your questions about reality vs religion then I get the feeling you have done no research for your self. I would be happy to educate you, but I fear you would have to question your beliefs, and that would just be terrible for you... or, would it?
narfanoid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@50belowhotdog said: "It’s interesting how you didn’t answer the question". I stated right in my reply the reason I didn't answer your question. Didn't you read it? I didn't answer because I assumed you didn't actually need an answer. It was my impression that you were merely trying to get me to say something you could try to manipulate. That seems to be your specialty.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog There is much literature out there as to why people around the world follow religion. The short answer is that it is believed to help us deal with one of two basic things - or both - those things being; things we don't understand about the world, and things to which we give symbolic meaning but find difficult to communicate the significance of. In short, no gods or spirits, etc, exist. We only act as though they do to give us a stronger communicative tool.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Do a little reading on Big Bang Theory before you spout off. And you really need to consider the validity of that question in the face of suggesting that there was always a god, who ALWAYS existed, and who precedes the very universe in which this god must occupy some kind of space. Religious concepts of the origins of the universe are seriously flawed. So many holes in the logic there is barely anything left of it.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog You are correct, not all scientists support the Big Bang Theory. Some (very few) of them prefer less popular theories... theories for which there are less data, and less statistical parameters to consider.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog well that question is technically impossible to answer because time did not exist before the big bang so there is no possible time scale to explain any pre-big bang events. and even if it weren't what is the relevance if we already know the big bang occurred?
thisis3d 1 year ago
@thisis3d psychobabble
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog lol i think you mean technobabble
thisis3d 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog And please do not take your spiritual/religious fervor out on me. You were the one who stated that there can only be two choices and I simply corrected you on that. You will notice I did NOT say that there was only one choice (my preferred Big Bang, hereafter BB for short), but rather INCLUDED BB as a third possibility. I also include the other scientific concepts about the origins of the universe as possibilities. It just happens that I side with the only sensible one - BB.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog The Washington Monument didn't come together on its own because it's made of completely inorganic matter. That which is inorganic is incapable of self-replicating, thereby making it impossible for the long process of natural selection to work on it, over many generations, slowly leading to different genera... in many cases (but not all) slightly more complex than the genera previous to it. Your analogy falls seriously flat.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid It is truly amazing how a mind can be so debilitated by fantasy Jeremiah 17:9
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Actually, Jeremiah 17:9 talks about the heart being deceitful. I would very much agree with that. The "heart" (in other words, our feelings) lead us to all sorts of silly ideas about the world. The fact that the comment is very apt does not impress the word of the bible any more on me. Talk of god and heaven and such is simply metaphorical banter.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid The one thing I hate about people is that they are so quick to spout off out of ignorance.
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Then you must really dislike yourself.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid People on this site are quick to criticize the bible and are slow to read it. And often their critique is based on ignorance.
50belowhotdog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@50belowhotdog said: "People on this site are quick to criticize the bible and are slow to read it. And often their critique is based on ignorance." Hey pal, I have read quite a bit from and about the bible. What is your excuse for your ignorant critique of science? How much scientific literature have you read? No, I don't mean "creation science" or pseudoscience. I mean REAL science. Peer reviewed journals, for example.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog You have criticized me for not directly answering a number of your questions, however, when I look back I see that you have done quite a lot of ignoring or glossing over of my questions or comments to you. I'm still waiting for you to catch onto the fact that I am trying to prompt you to explain how it is you can believe a dusty old book that has no supporting evidence behind it before you will believe hard science.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog I have countered pretty much everything you have said with logical, supportable statements, and yet you continue to act as though reading the bible is going to make it true. Just how strong do you think your argument really is? I can discuss science on a level you apparently cannot comprehend, and all you come back with is "the bible is true because it's true" or something similar. Wow, you really must have put a lot of thought behind that conclusion.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog You never really address any of my commentary in support of my position that science is infinitely more dependable than religion. Why is that? You always just come back to the same old tired "argument" that religious fanatics have used forever; "you have to believe it", or "you should read the bible", or some other such silliness that doesn't really help at all.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@50belowhotdog Interesting; I explain such things as evolutionary processes, and you reply with meaningless commentary suggesting that my mind is debilitated by fantasy. That's very interesting indeed, seeing as I'm not the one who believes in supernatural things... and you, in fact, do.
narfanoid 1 year ago
You talk about logic. Have you ever read any Aristotle?
cbsindelar 2 years ago
@cbsindelar I don't know if you were addressing me, but I mention logic fairly often. I am familiar with a number of students of logic. Why do you ask?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid I was not addressing you, but I ask about logic and Aristotle because of my interest in philosophy and it seems while Holybabble mentions Logic, Im not certain that he has studied any philosophy or Logic. While Im still learning, I myself am a philosophy major who, to say the least, believes in God.
cbsindelar 1 year ago
@cbsindelar From my studies of logic, it is not possible to follow the methods of logical thinking and conclude there is a god. It has been my experience that all rationalizations defending the existence of a god are the result of one of the fundamental falacies of logic - that being Confirming the Consequent. There are few situations in which confirming the consequent can be considered valid, and none of them include proving gods to be real, or even supporting the idea.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid Please share some of those arguments please...also have you read St. Thomas Aquinas's five ways?
cbsindelar 1 year ago
@cbsindelar The five ways... based on Aristotle's assertions of an "unmoved mover"? You must see the big problem with this line of thinking, don't you? Although it is logical to assume there could not be an infinite line of causes, it is not logical to assume that the "unmoved mover" is necessarily a god. The logic of this line of thinking only goes so far. It cannot be used as proof of the existence of any god. I could use the same logic to support the Big Bang, but I won't; science does that.
narfanoid 1 year ago
@narfanoid What would it be besides God? It would a)have intelligence therefore b) a will and would be the cause of all change in the world...
cbsindelar 1 year ago
@cbsindelar What do you mean "what would it be besides God?" What kind of question is that? Don't you read? Don't you find yourself curious enough about nature to want to look at what science says about it? Do some research. Get your nose out of your bible and actually look at some science journals. Read some headlines. See where the world is actually going.
narfanoid 1 year ago
I enjoyed this videos. Good point.
bnbalenda 2 years ago
Haha! Nice touch. Have you considered the amount of faith required in quantum mechanics, relativity or the big bang theory? Most of us simply aren't capable of understanding such things let alone the proof or evidence supporting it and often we don't need to to build on it. We have faith that others do understand however and accept that. (So you know where I stand, I study ecology at university, I'm not religious although I do believe that science and God can exist quite happily together.)
sjcousins 2 years ago
@sjcousins You're suggesting that the "faith" in something like physics is comparable to faith in a god?
narfanoid 1 year ago
@sjcousins I'm sorry you cannot comprehend scientific concepts, but please do not attempt to discredit my assertions that science has a great deal of merit. I do actually understand science quite well, and have in fact done a good deal of scientific "activity". I, for one, can happily stand behind the dependability of science because I have done it, I have read it, and I have taken the time understand how it works. So, you see, I don't need faith in science.
narfanoid 1 year ago
Thanks. I really enjoyed that!
jmyinlb 2 years ago
you should...you're 44!
holybabble 2 years ago
lol...loved it!
blaziermissy 2 years ago
I always thought bigfoot would be bigger. But, of course, evolution would have intermediate merelylargefoots (or feet), so at least now we don't have to go looking for the missing link!
DarwinsHamster 2 years ago
Or better ye,t being abducted by - 'Space Virgins from Planet Sex'. LOL
aartvegan 2 years ago
rofl nice video i forgot that ur subbed to me man
Legit92nick 2 years ago
You might not be picking on gods and devils, but Sasquatch is pickin' something at 0:31.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
yeah, i told him to take long steps, look around, and scratch his ass.... he didn't remember any of it, but luckily he scratches is ass in general!
holybabble 2 years ago
what about drangons that don't breath fire?
rd1999 2 years ago
there are such things, i have seen sufficient proof. they like to bite things and let them fester! only wish they could breathe on it and cook it.
holybabble 2 years ago
it is idoits like you that give decent researchers bad names. you and ppl like you do not help others in any way what so ever. I dont care what you think about Bigfoot but leave your stupid comments to yourself.
TxDragon55 2 years ago
LOL!
because you think bigfeet are real?! oh my! youtube gets them all!
whoo hoooo, you are the winner sir! great comment.
seriously laughing out loud at your idiocy.
ps: loch ness isn't real either, and we've seen no proof of unicorns and fire breathing dragons.
holybabble 2 years ago
actually, loch ness IS real...it's the monster that is fabricated.
holybabble 2 years ago
LOL!
good stuff!
Zentz29 2 years ago
im featuring this for a while
TheAist 2 years ago
thank you man! you are awesome! (thinkmorepink did the same thing. i really appreciate you heathens! there is a place for you in heaven....sadly, it's a bathroom that needs cleaning, but it's a start.)
*holy crap, i need to patent that, that's good!*
holybabble 2 years ago
lol yea ya do, thats a great one
TheAist 2 years ago
Hahahahahahahahaha...so fitting, so right!
phyde1966 2 years ago
I enjoyed the video. However, Faith doesn't take seeing, it takes believing. Believing takes trust. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. no one can make you believe. Faith is a gift from God. So, I pray that the Lord will call you and give you faith to believe because He is Wonderful and He loves you so much He went to a Cross and died for you so that you can be born again. Confusing? No! A Mystery? Yes! Faith is what we all need. Not doubt.
bjgrifman 2 years ago
i can tell you are a nice person...so i've decided not to call you an idiot.
i had plans to become a minister, and know fully well how the bible and your god works (they don't).
isn't it a shame that god has given some the gift of faith, and has removed it from me entirely?
again, you seem very nice. go in peace...serve the lord.
good bless,
adam
holybabble 2 years ago
"holybabble -5 months ago-
isn't it a shame that god has given some the gift of faith, and has removed it from me entirely?"
We are the most fortunate people on Earth!
Great vid!
I need to make one about zombie kittens.
psycotria 1 year ago
So whether someone has faith is up to the god?
Boxcutter7 2 years ago
yeah...you should know that. it's a gift from the gods. (people just make this happy-horseshit up as they go).
holybabble 2 years ago
lol. well done.
onlywhenprovoked 2 years ago
teehee
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i was wondering if i missed you...glad to see you stopped by!
holybabble 2 years ago
Looks like your videos are bringing you some noteriety. I believe you should take caution. It appears that you have a Furry stalker. Those people are freaks. Or they're awsome if you're into that.
DansLookingGlass 2 years ago
my wife made him a salad...but i really lured him over here with a couple beers.
holybabble 2 years ago
funny vid, also very fair. havent heard much from ya in a while.
on a serrious note if it was a hot alien would that make the whole "probe" thing a bit easier on you?
treetheoak 2 years ago
yeah, i would be more receptive...and maybe even reciprocate!
holybabble 2 years ago
haha very cute - great to see a video from you!
ihrmc 2 years ago
thank you.
holybabble 2 years ago
baha hot alien thats great, good stuff
slicydicy1 2 years ago
hey that is great with the bigfoot. I think you could have played this off more with a few more looks and not seeing the bigfoot. Was that Darcie or really bigfoot? LOL
girl30us2001 2 years ago
it was travis. darcie was on the cell phone listening for a couple key words so that he wouldn't be there when i look back....then pop back out there when i look away again.
holybabble 2 years ago
Loved it!
That was a little small for Bigfoot, though. I think it was Bigfoot's cousin, Moderately Large Toe.
Largo64 2 years ago
LOL, Moderately large toe
thinkmorepink 2 years ago