too bad this is just an illusion on both sides. we all know that satan created the universe and we were all originally talking flowers. its evolution people!!
@cfarinho1 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@turi73 I'll give a stab at it. Your deity is an all perfect being and requires nothing outside himself. Given this, it has no reason to care about anything outside itself. Why is God social as opposed to not social? What needs drive a god who needs nothing?
@AlexTheHumanist The question of man's religious accountability, the sending of the Prophets, the proclamation of divine messages, and the principle of resurrection and judgment—all these rest on man's free will and choice in the acts he performs.
It would be completely meaningless were God, on the one hand, to compel men to do certain things and, on the other, to reward or punish them.
It would surely be unjust were the Creator of the world to set us on whatever path He chose,
by means of His power and His will, and then to punish us for actions we have committed without any choice on our part.
If the deeds of men are, in reality, the acts of God, all corruption, evil and cruelty must be regarded as His work, whereas His most sacred being is utterly pure of all such corruption and injustice.
If there were no free choice for man, the whole concept of man's religious accountability would be unjust.
The oppressive tyrant would deserve no blame and the just would merit no praise, because responsibility has meaning only within the sphere of what is possible and attainable for man.
Man deserves blame or merits praise only when he is able to decide and to act freely; otherwise, there can be no question of blame or of praise.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you."
"A being with that kind of power could not possibly care who we have sex with. "He" neither loves nor hates neither the sinner nor the saint. "He" couldn't care less about our morals or whether we repent or any of it."
and can you give me a good philosophical argument as to why God wouldnt care? cause you are surely saying it as if you really know.if He set a moral law,then its obvious that He cares.if He set laws for matter,its is obvious that He cares matter obeys them.and they do
That's what i mean by Hitchens being a bore. You don't have to bother attending one of his debates, because anything that he has to say is so totally predictable and he's said it all before; like 20,000 times before.
And it's flat out dumb to ask for 'proof' of the existence of God. Shit; prove that the universe has or hasn't a purpose ? ... come on get real ! Some people use the idea of 'God' in their thinking, some people don't. I personally don't care if they do or don't, think what you want, but if your going to go about trying to prove it or disprove it, well then good luck, because an idea like 'God' just does not lend itself to proofs and disproofs.
I really wish that I could hear just one good intelligent debate about the existence vs non-existence of God one of the days. But both atheists and theists argue stupidly all the time. And this includes Hitchens too. His ideas are interesting for about five minutes and that's all, and highly redundant too. It's such a pity that the debate is always dominated by shallow bores. Truly Hitchens is a bore.
@MichaelnChristine For starters, Hitchens arguments are never really addressed to questions about 'God' per se, they are usually about how people use ideas like God for political or deceptive ends. But Hitchens goes on and on and on about this ad nauseum. We get your point already Hitchens, point taken, now move on for God's sakes, we've all heard it already, we are not that dim, there is no need for him to endlessly repeat himself lilke a demented parrot.
@tracygonecrazy1 All you did is repeat your same tired rant. Give us your arguments for God's existence or your arguments against. Let's see if they are better than his. Based on your reading comprehension I'd say they probably aren't.
@MichaelnChristine I have good arguments both for and against the existence of God. But unlike the loquacious Hitchens I don't feel an insecure compulsion to bore the rest of the planet with them in long dull diatribes that I pass off as books, or constantly tour the country vacuuming up all the speaking fees that I can while punishing an audience with my self-righteous screeds about how I'm right and everyone else in history was a fool.
@ladam24 I've never heard or seen a person who didn't think that they were right. I'm sure Hitchens thinks so too. I think that he's right about some things, wrong about others.
Typically Hitch, ... Why ask an atheist for a compelling argument for the existence of God ? If he had one then he wouldn't be an atheist ! Duh ! If you want a compelling argument for the existence of God then you have to ask somebody who has one, and it wouldn't be Hitch. It's like asking a fish to describe the motives of a mammal. It is a total waste f time.
This Interview was actually on the day Mr. Hitchens found out he had cancer. He told this in another interview that he still wanted to do this and the today show i think.
its funny, but a disbelief in God does not mean a belief in nothing, but rather a disbelief in God means a belief in anything. Theist would want anyone to suppose the opposite but in all reality they are the ones that believe in nothing, because at the end of the day if God is responsible for everything then nothing is responsible for anything
Anybody who talks about Arguments, Evidence, Proof... for the Existence of God has just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no idea what God is!
@avnerrietti - I think i understood your comment. As an athesit, I'm in total agreement. As such, whenever debating someone on the matter, I can never get a clear ,coherent definition off of someone in order to establish what we're talking about. While i agree with your idea, the fault lies with the theist who fails to offer up a coherent definition. Once cornered in debate the theist will invariably, dishonestly, change their definition & "move the goalpost".
@MaitreyaRocket "... I can never get a clear ,coherent definition ... to establish what we're talking about..." What are we talking about?
"... the fault lies with the theist who fails to offer up a coherent definition" That's because they either don't understand, or don't want you to understand. Claiming that they understand more than you gives them (supposedly) power.
I have been researching this for a long time and I finally got it: Just ask yourself:
@avnerrietti - If someone asks for evidence , argumentation & facts , they're seeking answers. It doesn't need to be pointed out to them their knowledge is unclear. They know that already. Unless you have evidence, facts, definitions or argumentation it's best you recuse yourself from the conversation. You have nothing to offer.
@avnerrietti - " God is not a physical object!" You have "0" basis for making such a statement. On top of that ,being physical isn't a criteria for existence or being knowable. I'm sure you can think of plenty of non-physical things that exist & are knowable. One can't "choose" to believe in something with no basis. I defy you to choose to believe in a purple elf that sits on my shoulder. You go on to contradict yourself & offer up a Biblical explanation.
@avnerrietti - While it's true that plenty of non-physical things that exist, one can still back up their existence with facts, evidence & argumentation. Non physical things existing doesn't mean a god is non-physical, nor does it make a stronger case for there being a god.
@avnerrietti - Whatever such a belief offers, it doesn't speak to its veracity or its truth. far from being innocuous, beliefs, true or false, have consequences in the world. Given the weight of such decisions, I think it's irresponsible to accept claims about life choices with no basis, reasonoing, logic, evidence, facts &/or argumentation to back up said beliefs. If someone asked you to accept Hinduism with no evidence or facts, you would think they were insane. You couldn't if you wanted t0
@avnerrietti - What religion has done , what they're for & what it has tried to to do are a multitude of different things for a multitude of reasons ,that # in the 1000s. It's quite evident that religion isn't even remotely required to establish values & morals. Questions concerning morality & the existence of supernatural beings are two different things. Morality is in no way contingent on religion.
@avnerrietti - Anything based on falsehoods will fail to generate anything positive in the long run. Divisive beliefs have cost humanity far too much. There simply wasn't a pay-off.
@avnerrietti - Rather than brain, I would say mind. Mind is not brain anymore than a World of Warcraft is a computer chip. The hardware / software analogy doesn't hold up well in regards to mind / brain, because mind is not an algorithm and all software is, but it's a start in understanding that brain and mind are not the same thing.
@tracygonecrazy1 Yes!! Mind,,, Brain,,, use whichever makes more sense to you.
The point I am trying to make is that the belief in God, if you choose to have it, is a Spiritual belief which is different than a belief in say... that light has a finite velocity...
@Menla1 Thanks Menla1. If I am "an idiot and a waste of time", then why are you wasting your time writing your angry rant.
... and then again you are claiming that I "have no coherent argument and have contradicted [my]self multiple times" but you don't seem to have the minimum written expression skill to explain where the contradiction is.
... so with all due respect, I believe that perhaps you should consider to "fuck off" before you hurt yourself... hahahahaha!
@minimalmodulation If you want to understand why "people continue to chop down trees in order to publish this ridiculous childrens story we call the bible"? ask yourself:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. "
"Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
@majestic93 That's an incredible underestimation lol. If you want enough 9s you'd probably have to cover a few pages, much more than YouTube let's you put in one comment.
Sagan wrote that if we were randomly inserted into the universe, the chances that you would be on or near a planet is less than one in a billion trillion trillion'. In scientific notation terms, that's 10 to the power of 33, or 1 followed by 33 zeros. Which sort of says it all; that's just planets, not necessarily habitable planets even!
I believe the universe is greater than myself BUT the universe is not a being, god, gin or any other type of conscience force it, like us, simple exist.
I think you will find that the people that are the most hung up on ideology are also those who are the most hung up on there being a supernatural being that controls everything.
@Envoid344 it dosen't need to be religion!!!! it can even be eny force of good, and when i say "slave to ideolgy" i meant someone elses ideolgy also like nazi's where to hitler.
@cfarinho1 - It seems you completely misunderstand the debate at a fundamental level. It's clear you also misunderstand the atheist position & what science is, does, & proposes.
The flaw in Hitchens rebuttal is that the "10 hundred 1000 billion" planets he speculates that are lifeless are likely more alive than we can possibly imagine. Rich with their own flora&faun and a great many of them with civilizations ranging from the most primitive we have known on Earth to some we cannot possibly comprehend millions or even billions of years old spanning galaxies.
Earth is just a primitive backwater planet with barely sentient mammals obsessed with their own intelligence.
@mattghtpa most planets are lifeless, there are 8 in our solar system that are, and this is a trend most likely found in other solar systems ranging from solar systems with only gas giants to solar systems with only asteroids, the majority of planets are most likely lifeless and unable to support life. Even if one planet in each solar system could have life on it, and did then that would still be a small percent of the planets out there.
@Sadochrist - You have no idea how many planets or moons in this solar system support life. We're still looking. Using your estimates ,at 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy , x that by the # of galaxies .
So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion . 10 sextillion ... (that # is light) That tiny % you speak of accounts for more life then most people can possibly imagine as far as numbers go.
@MaitreyaRocket There are still more dead planets then ones with life on it even with generous predictions which is why Hitchens used that argument. I agree that there probably is a lot of life out there, but still there will be more planets that have nothing on them then ones that do.
@Sadochrist Oh I agree with you and the others claiming most planets are lifeless rocks or gas, at least as we know life. There may be types of life we don't understand thriving in conditions or chemistry we never thought possible, but for ht most part I do agree the vast majority are lifeless.
Nevertheless, we're dealing numbers that even if in our own Galaxy only .0000001 had conditions for life and if only .001 of those became civilizations that would leave approximately 30 to 50.
@Sadochrist But then multiply that by an estimated 75 to 100 billion galaxies astronomers have calculated and, well you see my point. I think the glass is half full.
Humanity still suffers from a post Geocentric model just starting to move to a Heliocentric one let alone accept the idea that humans are not the alone in this Universe, but the enormous biodiversity of Earth and that organic compounds that saturate space logically means one thing, the Universe is very alive.
There are probably plenty of planets with inhabitants just like us. Clever enough to change their environment, not clever enough to grow above personal, tribal, national greed to co-operate in raising our civilisation to a higher level. We are in the golden age, when our resources are used up and our global economy collapses, we'll be back to the level of the iron age in 2 generations. (cheerfull little chappie, ain't I??)
@hybridD91 computer simulation? Tootsie roll pop? Those are useless questions and you are among those of our species not interested in real questions that matter like the ones I asked. Let's stop quibbling and pursue a sober direction of finding the answers. Our emotions own us now. Let's drop the hate and ridicule and reach for a higher mindset.
wow.i am totaslly convinced God doesnt exist.hitchens really convinced me.hahaha this is wack.how much faith athiests have.glory be the Gods Son Jesus Christ
@244Ohiro look at this universe,all time space matter, and especially information is big time evidence fo4r God? any objective scientifi evidence for athiesm?or just faith?
@turi73 So that's your evidence: Just look at everything and it's "BIG TIME" evidence for God??? You absolute embarrassment to humanity! No wonder you believe in an magical elderly Caucasian man who lives in the clouds!
@244Ohiro i can go in detail.information itself is the biggest evidence.athiesm wins?? show me please.u ignored my question.why tdo the facts and observations of the universe point to your theory of athiesm?God bless you
@turi73 No, sorry my friend, there is NO evidence for ANY god ANYwhere! Evidence for Atheism? Are you serious? Do people who do NOT believe in 3 headed transexual dragons need evidence for their NON belief? You absolute MORON! "Evidence for Atheism" - that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard of!
@244Ohiro the first law of information"information can NOt be created by satitistical processes. seconfd law of information "all information has to come from an intelligent mind". you have to show me why the fact of information points to your theory of athiesm.can you show me why all stars,galaxies,all life,points to your theory of athiesm?why is the thoery of athiesm more plausible when explaining all these facts of the universe?answer that please
@turi73 Where do those laws of information that you quoted come from? I've heard very pragmatic definitions of informations that are not in keeping with your quoted laws.
Atheism is not a world view, it does not attempt to explain the universe, you are confusing it science. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of the belief in God or a diety of any kind. Many atheists choose to ecplain the world around around them with science, but that does not make atheism and science the same thing.
@Crissix100 in 2006 a group of information scientists got together with dr.werner gitt other than defininf information.they came up with laws and coronaries hat have never been contradicted.yes i know that,and ive heard it from so many athiests,but what you need to do is explain to me why the facts of the universe point to the rejection of a Creator.in other words athiesm.show my WHy?all time space and matter points to the rejection of a God.
@turi73 Personally, I don't reject the possibility of a creator. I think that you can understand and reconcile all the laws of physics, and still believe that a creator put them there. That would actually be way more impressive than the creationism that the Bible teaches. I do however whole-heartedly reject the Judeo-Christian God and pretty much the whole Bible/Quran/Torah. As for the laws, while all information may be traceable to an intelligent mind, that does not at all imply God.
@Crissix100 your right.and corollary of law 2 says any given chain of information can be traced backward to an intelligent source.so if it is not God or a Creator,what would it be?aliens?
@turi73 Could be aliens, but then the question becomes "how did THEY initially come to be?". I never said it couldn't be a creator. I believe that a creator that could set things in motion just so, to allow all that exists now, would make the Judeo-Christian God look like an insect. What I fundamentally refuse to believe is that said creator, with such unfathomable power, would hate homosexuals and all that other moronic rubbish in the bible.
@Crissix100 your right about that first part.remember,God loves the sinner but hates the sin.He doesnt hate them,just wants them to come to repentance.if theirs a moral law,which the Creator set,then why is it so hard to assume theirs a judgement.if there was a legislation,there has to be judicial
@turi73 You haven't heard me. It's more impressive for a creator to set the conditions under which, say, the human eye (a favourite creationist example) can be evolved on its own than for that creator to create all human eyes individually, as the god of the bible does. A being with that kind of power could not possibly care who we have sex with. "He" neither loves nor hates neither the sinner nor the saint. "He" couldn't care less about our morals or whether we repent or any of it.
@turi73 - 1st & 2nd law of information ??? I imagine these "laws" are in full compliance with the 1st law of creationism sales techniques ... 1) Making unfounded shit up with a cheap veneer of science in order to further confound the uneducated is perfectly moral & reasonable. - Creationism, ID, &/or magic man theory are logical & scientific failures.
@MaitreyaRocket well obviously u cannot refute them.cause they are laws.these team of information scientist got together with dr.wener gitt.and beside coming up with the definition of information.came up with many scientific laws that have never contradicted.glory to JesusChrist
@244Ohiro murdered?you still have not provided me with any evidence to your athiesm.i at least gave you an answer.you,all you have said is athiesm wins,without giving me no evidence.thats how much faith you have.glory to Jesus Christ
@turi73 I don't need to, my friend, YOU do! You go the extra step and claim that the world has a divine creator when there in no reason to suppose so as the natural laws of the universe operate without that assumption. YOU have to prove YOUR position. My position - Atheism - is a simply a rejection of your claim, due to lack of evidence. The fact that you don't get this painfully simple fact speaks volumes of your knowledge and intellect.
@244Ohiro ive given you a case for information,all matter has info.first law of info,info cannot originate in statistical process.(meaning chance plus time can NOt created info,no matter how many chances or how much time is availabel) second law.information can only originate from an intelligent sender. chek this out,.so the information in all matter is my evdience for a Creator.now,it is your turn to refute my arguemnt,AND SHOW MY WHY THESE LAWS OF INFO POINT TO REJECTION OF GOD. glory to Jesus
So who was Jesus? Is it pure fiction? What forces hold every system together? What definition should "justice" be given? What is right and what is wrong? Where do we dedicate our metaphysical thoughts? Are all religions to be lumped together in judgment? How is anyone convinced of any conclusion at all? And how was gravity started?
@nickvonmises Why are you asking those questions? Why should any answer them? How do you know if you aren't a computer simulation? How in the hell did the Green Packers win the Super Bowl? How many licks does it take to get to the center of Tootsie Roll pop?
@lumpfish99 Because a religious order would be totally preferable. Weren't a bunch of people just beheaded in the middle east in retribution for a pastor here burning a koran? Yeah... totally preferable.
@milesbennettdyson religion has been corrupted....the central messege of all religions is being thrown out too....the central messege is one of love......this guy is throwing the baby out with the bath water....if you think that beheading people is a fair representation of love then you are too....
@lumpfish99 You can't No True Scotsman your way out of it--religions are just organizations of people, not the amorphous creatures they purport to represent. If people in your religion are doing bad things BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION TELLS THEM TO, then the religion is the underlying problem.
@milesbennettdyson i dont understand your reference to scottish people but either way....the religion has been stolen....the messege is one of love not the heavily edited nonsense you can read which passes for religious texts today.....
@lumpfish99 Actually, I've found the opposite, the older the religion the less love is involved. Early pagan gods, trickster spirits and the first versions of our Monotheist god are all morally imperfect (for all the accepts of new agers to make them family friendly) and often downright cruel. Love certainly isn't the central message, the central message is to accept the order of things as preordained.
@HybridD91 in the new one you would be reduced to a slave.....working harder and longer for little if any reward.....your rights would be stripped to serve the greater good....the rich elites would control everything down to your right to reproduce...your children would be sent for "education" and all information would be strictly controlled.....
Why do you people make it so complicated to understand religion! Religion was a simple political tactic to bring total populace under control of major authority! Turns out that this tactic worked Too Well!
@goog2k because its about the very specific POSITIVE electrical charge that must be venerated over the negative (which is also known as black/feminin/evil)
@goog2k - Einstein, Sagan, & Hawking wouldn't be so dim witted as to agree to call nature ,god. No Buddhist would either. It defies the first rule of logic. Something is what it is & isn't what it isn't.
Sorry, "god" is a word, "nature" is a word. They can be defined how you like. The actual etymology of the word "spirit" is "breath" or "to breathe" Look it up.
Tao, is the ground of being from which everything emerges and everything returns. It's what makes plants grow, the winds blow, and your heart beat. Jeez - sounds just like the western concept of Nature. Buddhists call it Sunyata.
Also have many quotes from Einstein, Sagan, & Hawking that Spirit=Universe=Nature.
Yes, we can all see how very profound and eloquent you are.
So, I'll ask you the same question. Please tell us -- where does your 'breath' (your breathing) originally come from. (And please, don't give us a simple kid's grammar school answer like your brain, medulla, or your lungs.)
Where does your breath ORIGINALLY come from?
Please try to sincerely answer -- find the original source? (Who knows, maybe you can learn something, Maitreya. LOL!)
@goog2k - Why ask a grammer school question & expect a PhD reply ? If you have a point to make , make it. Don't engage in childish games . Just be honest.
@goog2k - You were asked for a definition. You failed to provide one . All your "Intro to" books & cut & pasted quotes won't save from a stupid statement like 'Nature is god " .
@goog2k """"You sound like a retarded student of "comparative religion" """ LOL !! it sounds like you're doing quite a bit of projectong there ...LOL !!! How fucking uber -pretenious to think anyone is on your quiz show "Are You Smarter Than A Community College DropOut?" Please lay some more cliched undergrad wannabe bullshit on me like " "God is Nature" .
@goog2k Let me guess...is it god? Please explain in at least as much detail and with at least as much proof to back it up as you expect to be answered with. And please refrain from quoting the bible while doing so, unless you have good, solid evidence that the verse you are quoting has some actual substance and isn't just pretty semantics. Or do you think an atheist's difficulty in explaining complex biology to a layman such as yourself somehow proves your unproved principle by default?
I don't care for the word "god". God is usually envisioned as an anthropomorphic, big daddy up in the sky who sits there judging us and metes out rewards & punishment.
I used to teach science and love Einstein, Sagan & Hawking. So, why would I say your breath comes from some fairy tale sugar daddy up in the sky?
So, I'll ask you - and please try to answer. I've already given many hints to what I believe.
@goog2k - LOL ! You've spat this question (Where does your breath "originally" come from?)
at a few people in hopes you can correct them with some psuedo, quasi, new-age, unfounded,unscientific, illogical bullshit. I'll bite & give you the correct answer so you can have your short lived AH HAH moment. MY breath originates in MY lungs. Now go ahead, "science teacher", LOL! spew your illogical shit so I can correct you.
@goog2k Did you really study Taoism (Yin and Yang, Xiang Sheng Xiang Ke)and Buddhism? And did you understand what Einstein was talking about when he said that he believes in a Spinoza God? Please do not make your ignorance appear to be knowledgeable. Nowadays there are not only a lot of believers, but a lot of them are very well educated. To think that only you yourself is the knowing all person is plainly stupid.
@goog2k - The "Tao" is a religious stance that makes supernatural claims. The western concept of nature doesn't. Nature consists of natural things . Your attempts to attach pseudo-religious supernatural woo-woo to it fail, miserably. If you're concerned about people knowing "where breath comes from" LOL !!!, just tell them. You should be concerned with where your undergrad degree is coming from.
@MaitreyaRocket Sorry dummy. You don't know the the difference between popular Taoism and "philosophical Taoism" which is the ORIGIN of Taoism. Have you read the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu, or Chuang Tzu?
Yes, popular Taoism is supernatural, which includes ALL religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.
So, quit dodging and please tell us what is "Tao" - and exactly how is it different from the western concept of Nature? What is Sunyata? & where does your "breath" come from?
@goog2k - If you truly feel your dim witted, cliched, "God is Nature" idea can stand in debate , then issue a challenge at debatedotorg . Did you honestly think anyone would submit themselves to your simple minded, undergrad wannabe questioning while you play Humpty Dumpty? Really ? I'd much rather give your fallacious thinking the proper butchering it deserves. Nice move on calling me a dummy while having to qualify one your statements. No one can ever accuse you of being a slave to logic.
The absence of evidence is not proof of absence. That said I am an atheist, I just "believe" that there are more important aspects to life love & the universe than obsessing about what others believe. They can believe what the hell they like. It is actions & non actions that count, belief is thought, it is not within my principles to make it a crime or subjugate it.
To think that he had just found out he had cancer that day . . . wow. Throwing up twice ''violently'' as he put it. Brave man.
bfoaliali 1 week ago
too bad this is just an illusion on both sides. we all know that satan created the universe and we were all originally talking flowers. its evolution people!!
CarlChipSanders 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cfarinho1 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 10 months ago
Good example of damning with faint praise.
thegreatatheismo 10 months ago
@turi73 I'll give a stab at it. Your deity is an all perfect being and requires nothing outside himself. Given this, it has no reason to care about anything outside itself. Why is God social as opposed to not social? What needs drive a god who needs nothing?
AlexTheHumanist 10 months ago
@AlexTheHumanist The question of man's religious accountability, the sending of the Prophets, the proclamation of divine messages, and the principle of resurrection and judgment—all these rest on man's free will and choice in the acts he performs.
It would be completely meaningless were God, on the one hand, to compel men to do certain things and, on the other, to reward or punish them.
It would surely be unjust were the Creator of the world to set us on whatever path He chose,
1tabligh 10 months ago
by means of His power and His will, and then to punish us for actions we have committed without any choice on our part.
If the deeds of men are, in reality, the acts of God, all corruption, evil and cruelty must be regarded as His work, whereas His most sacred being is utterly pure of all such corruption and injustice.
If there were no free choice for man, the whole concept of man's religious accountability would be unjust.
1tabligh 10 months ago
The oppressive tyrant would deserve no blame and the just would merit no praise, because responsibility has meaning only within the sphere of what is possible and attainable for man.
Man deserves blame or merits praise only when he is able to decide and to act freely; otherwise, there can be no question of blame or of praise.
1tabligh 10 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
What needs drive a god who needs nothing?
____
His Mercy etc.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord, therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you."
The Quran 10 : 108
1tabligh 10 months ago
"A being with that kind of power could not possibly care who we have sex with. "He" neither loves nor hates neither the sinner nor the saint. "He" couldn't care less about our morals or whether we repent or any of it."
and can you give me a good philosophical argument as to why God wouldnt care? cause you are surely saying it as if you really know.if He set a moral law,then its obvious that He cares.if He set laws for matter,its is obvious that He cares matter obeys them.and they do
turi73 10 months ago
Is there anywhere I can see this whole discussion for free? Yes, I'm a cheap bastard.
rationalsalvation 10 months ago
That's what i mean by Hitchens being a bore. You don't have to bother attending one of his debates, because anything that he has to say is so totally predictable and he's said it all before; like 20,000 times before.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
And it's flat out dumb to ask for 'proof' of the existence of God. Shit; prove that the universe has or hasn't a purpose ? ... come on get real ! Some people use the idea of 'God' in their thinking, some people don't. I personally don't care if they do or don't, think what you want, but if your going to go about trying to prove it or disprove it, well then good luck, because an idea like 'God' just does not lend itself to proofs and disproofs.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
String Theory basically proves the existence of "God" IMO
LazarusCato 10 months ago
I really wish that I could hear just one good intelligent debate about the existence vs non-existence of God one of the days. But both atheists and theists argue stupidly all the time. And this includes Hitchens too. His ideas are interesting for about five minutes and that's all, and highly redundant too. It's such a pity that the debate is always dominated by shallow bores. Truly Hitchens is a bore.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Put up or shut up. Give us the better answers/questions. Show us how it is done.
MichaelnChristine 10 months ago
@MichaelnChristine For starters, Hitchens arguments are never really addressed to questions about 'God' per se, they are usually about how people use ideas like God for political or deceptive ends. But Hitchens goes on and on and on about this ad nauseum. We get your point already Hitchens, point taken, now move on for God's sakes, we've all heard it already, we are not that dim, there is no need for him to endlessly repeat himself lilke a demented parrot.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1 All you did is repeat your same tired rant. Give us your arguments for God's existence or your arguments against. Let's see if they are better than his. Based on your reading comprehension I'd say they probably aren't.
MichaelnChristine 10 months ago
@MichaelnChristine I have good arguments both for and against the existence of God. But unlike the loquacious Hitchens I don't feel an insecure compulsion to bore the rest of the planet with them in long dull diatribes that I pass off as books, or constantly tour the country vacuuming up all the speaking fees that I can while punishing an audience with my self-righteous screeds about how I'm right and everyone else in history was a fool.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1 He's right though.
ladam24 10 months ago
@ladam24 I've never heard or seen a person who didn't think that they were right. I'm sure Hitchens thinks so too. I think that he's right about some things, wrong about others.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
Typically Hitch, ... Why ask an atheist for a compelling argument for the existence of God ? If he had one then he wouldn't be an atheist ! Duh ! If you want a compelling argument for the existence of God then you have to ask somebody who has one, and it wouldn't be Hitch. It's like asking a fish to describe the motives of a mammal. It is a total waste f time.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
This Interview was actually on the day Mr. Hitchens found out he had cancer. He told this in another interview that he still wanted to do this and the today show i think.
siegfriedfreud1984 10 months ago
its funny, but a disbelief in God does not mean a belief in nothing, but rather a disbelief in God means a belief in anything. Theist would want anyone to suppose the opposite but in all reality they are the ones that believe in nothing, because at the end of the day if God is responsible for everything then nothing is responsible for anything
matt1523 10 months ago
@matt1523 "... a disbelief in God does not mean a belief in nothing ... means a belief in anything" So what do you believe?
It is very important to separate the people who adopt a religion, from the people who know what the belief in God is for?
Ask yourself: What is the belief in God for, and what would the belief in God give me?
avnerrietti 10 months ago
Anybody who talks about Arguments, Evidence, Proof... for the Existence of God has just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no idea what God is!
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti and you've just proven that you're schizophrenic
phantomdoodler 10 months ago
@phantomdoodler And you.... you will never understand what I mean by my comment.... and that is your loss... sorry.
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti and you've just provn beyond a shadow of a doubt that ur opinion should never be taken seriously.
Menla1 10 months ago
@Menla1 And you.... you will never understand what I mean by my comment.... and that is your loss... sorry.
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - I think i understood your comment. As an athesit, I'm in total agreement. As such, whenever debating someone on the matter, I can never get a clear ,coherent definition off of someone in order to establish what we're talking about. While i agree with your idea, the fault lies with the theist who fails to offer up a coherent definition. Once cornered in debate the theist will invariably, dishonestly, change their definition & "move the goalpost".
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket "... I can never get a clear ,coherent definition ... to establish what we're talking about..." What are we talking about?
"... the fault lies with the theist who fails to offer up a coherent definition" That's because they either don't understand, or don't want you to understand. Claiming that they understand more than you gives them (supposedly) power.
I have been researching this for a long time and I finally got it: Just ask yourself:
What is the belief in God for?
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - If someone asks for evidence , argumentation & facts , they're seeking answers. It doesn't need to be pointed out to them their knowledge is unclear. They know that already. Unless you have evidence, facts, definitions or argumentation it's best you recuse yourself from the conversation. You have nothing to offer.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Hmmm... let's try again:
Asking for Evidence or Arguments for the existance of God is a completely futile exercise.
God is not a physical object! God is something some people choose to belive in!
Why?
Ask yourself: What is the belief in God for?
What would the belief in God give me?
The Bible offers the explenation (the Answer if you'd like). Read e.g. Exodus - Chapter 20.
Let me know if you still have questions.
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - " God is not a physical object!" You have "0" basis for making such a statement. On top of that ,being physical isn't a criteria for existence or being knowable. I'm sure you can think of plenty of non-physical things that exist & are knowable. One can't "choose" to believe in something with no basis. I defy you to choose to believe in a purple elf that sits on my shoulder. You go on to contradict yourself & offer up a Biblical explanation.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Yes! Yes!
You got it!
You are right! "I'm sure you can think of plenty of non-physical things that exist"
Absolutely!
You can choose to believe in whatever... I would just beg you to make it a good choice!
Do you believe in good values?
What are good values?
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - While it's true that plenty of non-physical things that exist, one can still back up their existence with facts, evidence & argumentation. Non physical things existing doesn't mean a god is non-physical, nor does it make a stronger case for there being a god.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
Comment removed
avnerrietti 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaitreyaRocket ... Sorry... this line of questioning will not get us anywhere!!
The belief in God is simply something YOU (a person) chooses to believe in because it presents some benefits to you (that person).
I don't know how I can be clearer than that. If you want to know what those benefits are, ask yourself: What would the belief in God give me?
To find the answer I would suggest you start with Exodos 20...
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - Whatever such a belief offers, it doesn't speak to its veracity or its truth. far from being innocuous, beliefs, true or false, have consequences in the world. Given the weight of such decisions, I think it's irresponsible to accept claims about life choices with no basis, reasonoing, logic, evidence, facts &/or argumentation to back up said beliefs. If someone asked you to accept Hinduism with no evidence or facts, you would think they were insane. You couldn't if you wanted t0
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket If you are looking for physical evidence, facts based logical reasoning or arguments - Forget It!!!
It is a Futile Exercise!
I don't endorse any religion, but at least I bothered to spend time to undesrand what they are trying to do to us.
There is a big difference between Religions, Good Values and the belief in God.
What do we need good values for?
What is the belief in God for?
What are religions for ... and do we need them?
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - What religion has done , what they're for & what it has tried to to do are a multitude of different things for a multitude of reasons ,that # in the 1000s. It's quite evident that religion isn't even remotely required to establish values & morals. Questions concerning morality & the existence of supernatural beings are two different things. Morality is in no way contingent on religion.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Amen!!!
Good Values!
Morals!
Ethics!
Principles!
All are great words! It would be great to know exactly what they mean.
...
Religions! That's something different - I consider those tools, methods. Some are better, some are worse... some fit you... some don't.
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - Anything based on falsehoods will fail to generate anything positive in the long run. Divisive beliefs have cost humanity far too much. There simply wasn't a pay-off.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket - Hmmmmm... if you are referring to believing in God as "falsehood", let me remind you that belivers call it "the Truth"!!!
However, it is not a physical or a scientific truth. It is a spiritual truth if you like.
Now, for me personally, Spiritual is synonimous with Mental. It is something you keep in your head. It is in your brain!
We all know that is it our brain that contains our thoughts, memories and beliefs, right?
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti - Rather than brain, I would say mind. Mind is not brain anymore than a World of Warcraft is a computer chip. The hardware / software analogy doesn't hold up well in regards to mind / brain, because mind is not an algorithm and all software is, but it's a start in understanding that brain and mind are not the same thing.
tracygonecrazy1 10 months ago
Comment removed
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@tracygonecrazy1 Yes!! Mind,,, Brain,,, use whichever makes more sense to you.
The point I am trying to make is that the belief in God, if you choose to have it, is a Spiritual belief which is different than a belief in say... that light has a finite velocity...
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti haha nice using exactly the same reply to 2 different critics, i wish i could say that s new for theist arguments but it isn't.
Menla1 10 months ago
@Menla1 I am not a Theist!
I don't go around claiming to be Atheist either. Why?
Well... I researched the subject of religionsm good values and the belief in God extenssively.
I understand why some people choose to believe in God.
Ask yourself: What is the belief in God for?
What would the belief in God give me?
The Bible offers the explenation (the Answer if you'd like). Read e.g. Exodus - Chapter 20.
Let me know if you still have questions.
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti none of that is coherent and you clearly have not researched extensively if this is the response given. stop wasting people's time
Menla1 10 months ago
@Menla1 Hahaha... but you are not saying anything in your comment... what part of my explanation is incoherent and why?
Explaining and passing on useful information that I have researched is never a waste of time!
May God bless you with some intelligence!
avnerrietti 10 months ago
@avnerrietti " I am not a Theist!"
"May God bless you with some intelligence!"
this is why you are an idiot and a waste of time. shut up and fuck off.
you have no coherent argument and have contradicted yourself multiple times in short, vague and void paragraphs. go away
Menla1 10 months ago
@Menla1 Thanks Menla1. If I am "an idiot and a waste of time", then why are you wasting your time writing your angry rant.
... and then again you are claiming that I "have no coherent argument and have contradicted [my]self multiple times" but you don't seem to have the minimum written expression skill to explain where the contradiction is.
... so with all due respect, I believe that perhaps you should consider to "fuck off" before you hurt yourself... hahahahaha!
avnerrietti 10 months ago
Why do people continue to chop down trees in order to publish this ridiculous childrens story we call the bible?? At least trees have a purpose.
At least the bible is good for swearing on ;)
minimalmodulation 10 months ago
Comment removed
avnerrietti 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@minimalmodulation If you want to understand why "people continue to chop down trees in order to publish this ridiculous childrens story we call the bible"? ask yourself:
What are Good Values?
Where do Good Values come from?
What is the belief in God for?
What would the belief in God give me?
What does the Bible say about Values?
What does the Bible day about God?
avnerrietti 10 months ago
There are few things as challenging or as satisfying as watching really smart guys having a conversation.
splintamike 10 months ago
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein
goog2k 10 months ago
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. "
-- Albert Einstein
goog2k 10 months ago
Continued --
"Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
--Albert Einstein
goog2k 10 months ago
But!, but, look at the TREES!!
yeshuahfullofit 10 months ago
Stating that “Life is the result of the fine tuning of the universe” is a fallacious claim!
MsWanderer1 10 months ago
1% clicks of dislike. So what.
truvelocity 10 months ago
wait, I thought this guy was dying from cancer or something. this must be an old video.
norbu2006 10 months ago
@cfarinho1 What fine-tuning? 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is inhospitable to life.
majestic93 10 months ago
@majestic93 That's an incredible underestimation lol. If you want enough 9s you'd probably have to cover a few pages, much more than YouTube let's you put in one comment.
Kjellarnek 10 months ago
@Kjellarnek You're probably right.
Sagan wrote that if we were randomly inserted into the universe, the chances that you would be on or near a planet is less than one in a billion trillion trillion'. In scientific notation terms, that's 10 to the power of 33, or 1 followed by 33 zeros. Which sort of says it all; that's just planets, not necessarily habitable planets even!
majestic93 10 months ago
ULTIMATLY, YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING GRATER THEN YOURSELF, OR U WILL BECOME A SLAVE TO IDEOLGY.........THOSE PEOPLE ARNEN'T FREE AT ALL!!!!
Alistarb25 10 months ago
@Alistarb25
I believe in a cheese grater than myself.
ClumsyRoot 10 months ago
@Alistarb25
I believe the universe is greater than myself BUT the universe is not a being, god, gin or any other type of conscience force it, like us, simple exist.
I think you will find that the people that are the most hung up on ideology are also those who are the most hung up on there being a supernatural being that controls everything.
chrisose 10 months ago
@chrisose
Not "greater" just bigger.
Wordavee1 10 months ago
@Alistarb25 Says who??? Humans all have ideology; it simply means you live by certain ideas, which we all do!
Some believe in gods and some believe in no bullshit both forms of ideology.
Envoid344 10 months ago
@Envoid344 it dosen't need to be religion!!!! it can even be eny force of good, and when i say "slave to ideolgy" i meant someone elses ideolgy also like nazi's where to hitler.
Alistarb25 10 months ago
@Alistarb25 Who said it had to be religion? I know it shouldn't be but that is what it is for some.
Envoid344 10 months ago
@cfarinho1 Where is the fine tuning you speak about?
Steinap 10 months ago
@cfarinho1 - It seems you completely misunderstand the debate at a fundamental level. It's clear you also misunderstand the atheist position & what science is, does, & proposes.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@cfarinho1 - How is what "fine tuning" explained ?
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
The flaw in Hitchens rebuttal is that the "10 hundred 1000 billion" planets he speculates that are lifeless are likely more alive than we can possibly imagine. Rich with their own flora&faun and a great many of them with civilizations ranging from the most primitive we have known on Earth to some we cannot possibly comprehend millions or even billions of years old spanning galaxies.
Earth is just a primitive backwater planet with barely sentient mammals obsessed with their own intelligence.
mattghtpa 10 months ago
@mattghtpa wrong my friend most things in the universe are dead fact
FIGHTFANNERD3 10 months ago
@mattghtpa most planets are lifeless, there are 8 in our solar system that are, and this is a trend most likely found in other solar systems ranging from solar systems with only gas giants to solar systems with only asteroids, the majority of planets are most likely lifeless and unable to support life. Even if one planet in each solar system could have life on it, and did then that would still be a small percent of the planets out there.
Sadochrist 10 months ago
@Sadochrist - You have no idea how many planets or moons in this solar system support life. We're still looking. Using your estimates ,at 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy , x that by the # of galaxies .
So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion . 10 sextillion ... (that # is light) That tiny % you speak of accounts for more life then most people can possibly imagine as far as numbers go.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket There are still more dead planets then ones with life on it even with generous predictions which is why Hitchens used that argument. I agree that there probably is a lot of life out there, but still there will be more planets that have nothing on them then ones that do.
Sadochrist 10 months ago
@Sadochrist Oh I agree with you and the others claiming most planets are lifeless rocks or gas, at least as we know life. There may be types of life we don't understand thriving in conditions or chemistry we never thought possible, but for ht most part I do agree the vast majority are lifeless.
Nevertheless, we're dealing numbers that even if in our own Galaxy only .0000001 had conditions for life and if only .001 of those became civilizations that would leave approximately 30 to 50.
mattghtpa 10 months ago
@Sadochrist But then multiply that by an estimated 75 to 100 billion galaxies astronomers have calculated and, well you see my point. I think the glass is half full.
Humanity still suffers from a post Geocentric model just starting to move to a Heliocentric one let alone accept the idea that humans are not the alone in this Universe, but the enormous biodiversity of Earth and that organic compounds that saturate space logically means one thing, the Universe is very alive.
mattghtpa 10 months ago
@mattghtpa
There are probably plenty of planets with inhabitants just like us. Clever enough to change their environment, not clever enough to grow above personal, tribal, national greed to co-operate in raising our civilisation to a higher level. We are in the golden age, when our resources are used up and our global economy collapses, we'll be back to the level of the iron age in 2 generations. (cheerfull little chappie, ain't I??)
Wordavee1 10 months ago
@hybridD91 computer simulation? Tootsie roll pop? Those are useless questions and you are among those of our species not interested in real questions that matter like the ones I asked. Let's stop quibbling and pursue a sober direction of finding the answers. Our emotions own us now. Let's drop the hate and ridicule and reach for a higher mindset.
nickvonmises 10 months ago
All that space and we humans are stuck on this planet. Fine tuned universe my ass.
HybridD91 10 months ago
God is the joke that only Atheists get.
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 10 months ago
wow.i am totaslly convinced God doesnt exist.hitchens really convinced me.hahaha this is wack.how much faith athiests have.glory be the Gods Son Jesus Christ
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 Any objective scientific evidence for God? Or just faith?
244Ohiro 10 months ago
@244Ohiro look at this universe,all time space matter, and especially information is big time evidence fo4r God? any objective scientifi evidence for athiesm?or just faith?
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 So that's your evidence: Just look at everything and it's "BIG TIME" evidence for God??? You absolute embarrassment to humanity! No wonder you believe in an magical elderly Caucasian man who lives in the clouds!
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 10 months ago
@244Ohiro i can go in detail.information itself is the biggest evidence.athiesm wins?? show me please.u ignored my question.why tdo the facts and observations of the universe point to your theory of athiesm?God bless you
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 No, sorry my friend, there is NO evidence for ANY god ANYwhere! Evidence for Atheism? Are you serious? Do people who do NOT believe in 3 headed transexual dragons need evidence for their NON belief? You absolute MORON! "Evidence for Atheism" - that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard of!
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 10 months ago
@244Ohiro the first law of information"information can NOt be created by satitistical processes. seconfd law of information "all information has to come from an intelligent mind". you have to show me why the fact of information points to your theory of athiesm.can you show me why all stars,galaxies,all life,points to your theory of athiesm?why is the thoery of athiesm more plausible when explaining all these facts of the universe?answer that please
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 Where do those laws of information that you quoted come from? I've heard very pragmatic definitions of informations that are not in keeping with your quoted laws.
Atheism is not a world view, it does not attempt to explain the universe, you are confusing it science. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of the belief in God or a diety of any kind. Many atheists choose to ecplain the world around around them with science, but that does not make atheism and science the same thing.
Crissix100 10 months ago
@Crissix100 - His "laws of information" are clearly a badly done hack from some creationist website.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@Crissix100 in 2006 a group of information scientists got together with dr.werner gitt other than defininf information.they came up with laws and coronaries hat have never been contradicted.yes i know that,and ive heard it from so many athiests,but what you need to do is explain to me why the facts of the universe point to the rejection of a Creator.in other words athiesm.show my WHy?all time space and matter points to the rejection of a God.
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 Personally, I don't reject the possibility of a creator. I think that you can understand and reconcile all the laws of physics, and still believe that a creator put them there. That would actually be way more impressive than the creationism that the Bible teaches. I do however whole-heartedly reject the Judeo-Christian God and pretty much the whole Bible/Quran/Torah. As for the laws, while all information may be traceable to an intelligent mind, that does not at all imply God.
Crissix100 10 months ago
@Crissix100 your right.and corollary of law 2 says any given chain of information can be traced backward to an intelligent source.so if it is not God or a Creator,what would it be?aliens?
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 Could be aliens, but then the question becomes "how did THEY initially come to be?". I never said it couldn't be a creator. I believe that a creator that could set things in motion just so, to allow all that exists now, would make the Judeo-Christian God look like an insect. What I fundamentally refuse to believe is that said creator, with such unfathomable power, would hate homosexuals and all that other moronic rubbish in the bible.
Crissix100 10 months ago
@Crissix100 your right about that first part.remember,God loves the sinner but hates the sin.He doesnt hate them,just wants them to come to repentance.if theirs a moral law,which the Creator set,then why is it so hard to assume theirs a judgement.if there was a legislation,there has to be judicial
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 You haven't heard me. It's more impressive for a creator to set the conditions under which, say, the human eye (a favourite creationist example) can be evolved on its own than for that creator to create all human eyes individually, as the god of the bible does. A being with that kind of power could not possibly care who we have sex with. "He" neither loves nor hates neither the sinner nor the saint. "He" couldn't care less about our morals or whether we repent or any of it.
Crissix100 10 months ago
@turi73 - 1st & 2nd law of information ??? I imagine these "laws" are in full compliance with the 1st law of creationism sales techniques ... 1) Making unfounded shit up with a cheap veneer of science in order to further confound the uneducated is perfectly moral & reasonable. - Creationism, ID, &/or magic man theory are logical & scientific failures.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket well obviously u cannot refute them.cause they are laws.these team of information scientist got together with dr.wener gitt.and beside coming up with the definition of information.came up with many scientific laws that have never contradicted.glory to JesusChrist
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 LOL! No need to respond here, I see you've been intellectually murdered over and over by some of my Atheist comrades.
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 10 months ago
@244Ohiro murdered?you still have not provided me with any evidence to your athiesm.i at least gave you an answer.you,all you have said is athiesm wins,without giving me no evidence.thats how much faith you have.glory to Jesus Christ
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 I don't need to, my friend, YOU do! You go the extra step and claim that the world has a divine creator when there in no reason to suppose so as the natural laws of the universe operate without that assumption. YOU have to prove YOUR position. My position - Atheism - is a simply a rejection of your claim, due to lack of evidence. The fact that you don't get this painfully simple fact speaks volumes of your knowledge and intellect.
Atheism WINS!
244Ohiro 10 months ago
@244Ohiro ive given you a case for information,all matter has info.first law of info,info cannot originate in statistical process.(meaning chance plus time can NOt created info,no matter how many chances or how much time is availabel) second law.information can only originate from an intelligent sender. chek this out,.so the information in all matter is my evdience for a Creator.now,it is your turn to refute my arguemnt,AND SHOW MY WHY THESE LAWS OF INFO POINT TO REJECTION OF GOD. glory to Jesus
turi73 10 months ago
@turi73 bro,can we continue?are you willing to learn?
turi73 10 months ago 3
Hitchens believed there were WMDs in Iraq. Since then I've found it hard to believe a word he says.
TheFleurieuLA 10 months ago
@TheFleurieuLA Hitchens: smart in atheism; dumber than a brick in neocon thinking.
indignant99 10 months ago
So who was Jesus? Is it pure fiction? What forces hold every system together? What definition should "justice" be given? What is right and what is wrong? Where do we dedicate our metaphysical thoughts? Are all religions to be lumped together in judgment? How is anyone convinced of any conclusion at all? And how was gravity started?
nickvonmises 10 months ago
@nickvonmises Why are you asking those questions? Why should any answer them? How do you know if you aren't a computer simulation? How in the hell did the Green Packers win the Super Bowl? How many licks does it take to get to the center of Tootsie Roll pop?
HybridD91 10 months ago
this guy is a nwo tool....his whole purpose was to make atheism sexy.....part of the new world plan is a secular order.....
lumpfish99 10 months ago
@lumpfish99 Because a religious order would be totally preferable. Weren't a bunch of people just beheaded in the middle east in retribution for a pastor here burning a koran? Yeah... totally preferable.
milesbennettdyson 10 months ago
@milesbennettdyson religion has been corrupted....the central messege of all religions is being thrown out too....the central messege is one of love......this guy is throwing the baby out with the bath water....if you think that beheading people is a fair representation of love then you are too....
lumpfish99 10 months ago
@lumpfish99 You can't No True Scotsman your way out of it--religions are just organizations of people, not the amorphous creatures they purport to represent. If people in your religion are doing bad things BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION TELLS THEM TO, then the religion is the underlying problem.
milesbennettdyson 10 months ago
@milesbennettdyson i dont understand your reference to scottish people but either way....the religion has been stolen....the messege is one of love not the heavily edited nonsense you can read which passes for religious texts today.....
lumpfish99 10 months ago
@lumpfish99 No True Scotsman fallacy. Look it up.
milesbennettdyson 10 months ago
@lumpfish99 Actually, I've found the opposite, the older the religion the less love is involved. Early pagan gods, trickster spirits and the first versions of our Monotheist god are all morally imperfect (for all the accepts of new agers to make them family friendly) and often downright cruel. Love certainly isn't the central message, the central message is to accept the order of things as preordained.
DerBlitzStag 10 months ago
@lumpfish99 I wouldn't mind a New World Order, the old one is obviously fucked up.
HybridD91 10 months ago
@HybridD91 in the new one you would be reduced to a slave.....working harder and longer for little if any reward.....your rights would be stripped to serve the greater good....the rich elites would control everything down to your right to reproduce...your children would be sent for "education" and all information would be strictly controlled.....
lumpfish99 10 months ago
Why do you people make it so complicated to understand religion! Religion was a simple political tactic to bring total populace under control of major authority! Turns out that this tactic worked Too Well!
deeppurple28 10 months ago
@deeppurple28
Obviously this isn't true since religion exists even among peoples that have never had governments.
ivlfounder 10 months ago
@deeppurple28 You'll never convince them of this simple truth but please keep trying!!!!
thekswervedirt 10 months ago
what an utter waste of time this was
2JOHNNYT 10 months ago
@2JOHNNYT They're popular questions which he volunteered to answer. I don't see the waste at all.
Sardonac 10 months ago
I am convinced after watching FORA.TV for some time now that whoever is selecting the videos that go on this channel is an atheist.
AtheistKharm 10 months ago
@AtheistKharm No shit, Sherlock. And FORA is an atheist rooted org. Tough shit for you!
indignant99 10 months ago
@indignant99 congrats you win at useless knowledge trivia
AtheistKharm 10 months ago
So, why don't we just call god "Nature"???
The Taoists and Buddhists don't have a problem with that.
-- and I would guess Einstein, Sagan, and Hawkins wouldn't object.
YEA!!!!! It's settled.
(LOL!)
goog2k 10 months ago 35
@goog2k because its about the very specific POSITIVE electrical charge that must be venerated over the negative (which is also known as black/feminin/evil)
TurboGC8 10 months ago
@TurboGC8 Don't forget, this very specific facet of nature needs tithes too.
theystoleitfromus 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theystoleitfromus Don't forget, this very specific facet of nature needs titties too.
SeeProfileForDetails 10 months ago
@theystoleitfromus - wouldn't that amount to 110%...hmm, greedy god, greedy!!!
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 10 months ago
@goog2k dont make stuff up
FIGHTFANNERD3 10 months ago
@FIGHTFANNERD3 Sorry, exactly, what am I making up?
(please see my response to MaitreyaRocket.)
BTW, since you think I'm making stuff up, may I ask you a question?
Where does your breath come from? -- and please don't just say your brain or lungs, or your medulla.
Please try to trace it back to it's original source. WHERE exactly does your "breathing" originally come from?
LOL!!!
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - Einstein, Sagan, & Hawking wouldn't be so dim witted as to agree to call nature ,god. No Buddhist would either. It defies the first rule of logic. Something is what it is & isn't what it isn't.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket LOL!!!
Sorry, "god" is a word, "nature" is a word. They can be defined how you like. The actual etymology of the word "spirit" is "breath" or "to breathe" Look it up.
Tao, is the ground of being from which everything emerges and everything returns. It's what makes plants grow, the winds blow, and your heart beat. Jeez - sounds just like the western concept of Nature. Buddhists call it Sunyata.
Also have many quotes from Einstein, Sagan, & Hawking that Spirit=Universe=Nature.
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - That's a lot of words in the use of saying absolutely nothing of any meaning whatsoever ...
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket LOL!!!
Yes, we can all see how very profound and eloquent you are.
So, I'll ask you the same question. Please tell us -- where does your 'breath' (your breathing) originally come from. (And please, don't give us a simple kid's grammar school answer like your brain, medulla, or your lungs.)
Where does your breath ORIGINALLY come from?
Please try to sincerely answer -- find the original source? (Who knows, maybe you can learn something, Maitreya. LOL!)
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - Why ask a grammer school question & expect a PhD reply ? If you have a point to make , make it. Don't engage in childish games . Just be honest.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket I see you don't even have a clue.
Maitreya? LOL!!!
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - You were asked for a definition. You failed to provide one . All your "Intro to" books & cut & pasted quotes won't save from a stupid statement like 'Nature is god " .
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket
You sound like a retarded student of "comparative religion" at a fundamentalist Christian university. You don't even have a clue.
I've asked you a few simple questions:
What is "Tao" - and how is it different from the western concept of Nature?
What is Sunyata?
What is Nature?
And most important of all, "Where does your breath come from?"
Please Mr. Maitreya (future Buddha), please impart your wisdom to us.
LOL!!!
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k """"You sound like a retarded student of "comparative religion" """ LOL !! it sounds like you're doing quite a bit of projectong there ...LOL !!! How fucking uber -pretenious to think anyone is on your quiz show "Are You Smarter Than A Community College DropOut?" Please lay some more cliched undergrad wannabe bullshit on me like " "God is Nature" .
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@goog2k Let me guess...is it god? Please explain in at least as much detail and with at least as much proof to back it up as you expect to be answered with. And please refrain from quoting the bible while doing so, unless you have good, solid evidence that the verse you are quoting has some actual substance and isn't just pretty semantics. Or do you think an atheist's difficulty in explaining complex biology to a layman such as yourself somehow proves your unproved principle by default?
jancar2012 10 months ago
@jancar2012 Thank you for your interest.
I don't care for the word "god". God is usually envisioned as an anthropomorphic, big daddy up in the sky who sits there judging us and metes out rewards & punishment.
I used to teach science and love Einstein, Sagan & Hawking. So, why would I say your breath comes from some fairy tale sugar daddy up in the sky?
So, I'll ask you - and please try to answer. I've already given many hints to what I believe.
Where does your breath "originally" come from?
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k
"I used to teach science"
"why would I say your breath comes from some fairy tale sugar daddy up in the sky?"
I can see why you are no longer employed.
ivlfounder 10 months ago
@ivlfounder It's funny to see the wackos come out of the woodwork.
What is Unified Field theory? What is nature?
Guess you like the fairy tale big daddy up in the sky theory.
LOL!!!
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - LOL ! You've spat this question (Where does your breath "originally" come from?)
at a few people in hopes you can correct them with some psuedo, quasi, new-age, unfounded,unscientific, illogical bullshit. I'll bite & give you the correct answer so you can have your short lived AH HAH moment. MY breath originates in MY lungs. Now go ahead, "science teacher", LOL! spew your illogical shit so I can correct you.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Oops!
That is your response? (your lungs) -- Jeez, Maitreya (who is the future Buddha) did you even google breath and read Wikipedia? LOL!
Even a good 5th grade science student could tell you the human biological drive for breathing originates in the medulla, not the lungs.
But forget about that, let's continue -- where does your biological drive for "breath" come from?
WHY does your primitive brain tell you it needs more oxygen?
(Be careful, you've still got a long way to go.)
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k Did you really study Taoism (Yin and Yang, Xiang Sheng Xiang Ke)and Buddhism? And did you understand what Einstein was talking about when he said that he believes in a Spinoza God? Please do not make your ignorance appear to be knowledgeable. Nowadays there are not only a lot of believers, but a lot of them are very well educated. To think that only you yourself is the knowing all person is plainly stupid.
wormite 10 months ago
@wormite So great sage, please tell us what the Tao is, and how it differs from the western concept of nature?
(You obviously don't even have a clue what sunyata is.)
As far as Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking goes, I can offer many quotes.
In fact, can you offer anything of real substance?
Maybe you can tell Maitreya where his breath comes from? LOL!
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - The "Tao" is a religious stance that makes supernatural claims. The western concept of nature doesn't. Nature consists of natural things . Your attempts to attach pseudo-religious supernatural woo-woo to it fail, miserably. If you're concerned about people knowing "where breath comes from" LOL !!!, just tell them. You should be concerned with where your undergrad degree is coming from.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket Sorry dummy. You don't know the the difference between popular Taoism and "philosophical Taoism" which is the ORIGIN of Taoism. Have you read the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu, or Chuang Tzu?
Yes, popular Taoism is supernatural, which includes ALL religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.
So, quit dodging and please tell us what is "Tao" - and exactly how is it different from the western concept of Nature? What is Sunyata? & where does your "breath" come from?
Duhh???
goog2k 10 months ago
@goog2k - If you truly feel your dim witted, cliched, "God is Nature" idea can stand in debate , then issue a challenge at debatedotorg . Did you honestly think anyone would submit themselves to your simple minded, undergrad wannabe questioning while you play Humpty Dumpty? Really ? I'd much rather give your fallacious thinking the proper butchering it deserves. Nice move on calling me a dummy while having to qualify one your statements. No one can ever accuse you of being a slave to logic.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
for a second there I thought Hitches was getting better.
logicbloke 10 months ago
@logicbloke ain'ts hair not there
SeeProfileForDetails 10 months ago
there is no good argument
ForcesOfReality 10 months ago
The absence of evidence is not proof of absence. That said I am an atheist, I just "believe" that there are more important aspects to life love & the universe than obsessing about what others believe. They can believe what the hell they like. It is actions & non actions that count, belief is thought, it is not within my principles to make it a crime or subjugate it.
Kinkspace 10 months ago