I'm a christian and the video did make me smile. I don't know where the arguments below are from. Science will never replace religion. There are things that science will never able to explain. Science is just a method for humans to understand the world and our vocation - we are born to search the reunion with God.
The fact that science can't explain everything, doesn't mean religion can explain anything. Religion fails at explaining, so it demands people to have faith.
@dudev well I'm not only a Christian but also a science person. Although I did struggle a little earlier, but now, I don't see a distinguish between science and my Faith. I didn't say religion is able to explain everything. I don't even need my Faith to explain anything to me. The only thing I need is I know that there is someone that loves me so much, and I'm supposed to pass on the love to other people. And whatever happens, there's a plan for me, and I never need to lose hope
They were allowed to say bad things about Samaitans but not allowed to say good things about them because they were enemies..It's like Jews saying good things about Nazis..In this parable the teacher felt uncomfortable to say the Samaritan was a neighbor - its like saying a Nazi is his neighbor..It's psychological reason. Also read it from wikipedia if you search on this parable.
@CrownedWithLaurels Also Jesus was careful not to say "Good" cuz He wanted to ask the teacher of the law after the Parable "Who do you think is the neighbor to the Injured Jew?" If he said "good" He would have given everyone the answer. Also Jews were not allowed to even say Samaritan so the teacher of the Law said "The one who had mercy on him" Without saying Samaritan.It's a very sensitive topic in the time of Jesus. Jesus made many Jewish enemies because He broke many Jewish Tradition/Law.
@SimonCU Actually you got it wrong, Jesus is God, and he did not broke any laws, Remember in the beginning He did Created those Laws for them...I not saying anyones wrong here, Even though they are following the Tradition law Way, they are doing it, but doing it in the wrong way...
@MayaCherry86 He did break the Sabbath law.He said"The Sabbath was made for man,not man for the Sabbath".And he did feel the greatest commandant was "LOVE" and everything else comes after that.That is why it is so difficult to go to heaven.Many Christians follow the small commandments but find it difficult to love someone who is different from them(outcast).Even a high Priest/Levi who live his life praying,reading the holy book, living in the church can't enter heaven without loving an outcast.
@SimonCU First You Should Pray and Ask the Lord For yourself...Cause if you had the Holy Spirit, you would Understand it by now...With the Holy Spirit he Explain Many things to make you Understand the Whole Concept about the Beginning and for is to Come, Can you even Imaged to know a True Deep Meaning from Him? He Would Tell you Many Things that You Might Not Even Know Or See. Yes I've Been Born-Again in the Spirit, And I have Seen Him,If You Seek, and Knock the Door Should be Open on to you..
@MayaCherry86 I'm not sayin who has the Holy Spirit&who don't.Im just saying that the Parable is very plan simple.Jesus used simple sentences and it is clear why He said"Do this and you will have eternal life".In the Parable he picked on the Priest and Levi who think they were religious.But a normal Samaritan had mercy on an enemy.Who do you think inherited eternal life?To be born again means nothing if you can't love your enemy.This parable makes a lot of Religious people feel uncomfortable.
@MayaCherry86 Also the teacher of the law who made Jesus tell this parable might not have the holy spirit but he knew and understood Jesus by saying "The one who had mercy on him"..When Jesus heard this reply He was pleased and ordered him "Do this and you will have eternal life"...Remember this teacher of the law knew what Jesus was talking about is most likely didn't have the Holy Spirit on him or born again..That is why even without the holy spirit it's understandable.
@SimonCU, said "He was pleased and ordered him "Do this and you will have eternal life"...Remember this teacher of the law knew what Jesus was talking about is most likely didn't have the Holy Spirit on him or born again..That is why even without the holy spirit it's understandable."
@MayaCherry86 Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me......... What a sadistic bastard... I mean he doesn't want to do the deed himself, he wants to be a spectator.
@MayaCherry86 said, "Actually you got it wrong, Jesus is God, and he did not broke any laws..."
Sorry, but that's non-gospel dogma. In John 8, "Jesus" makes it clear that he and 'god' are two different people. He supposedly had 33 some odd number of years to say "Hey everyone, I'm freakin 'god'", and yet modern day self-serving apologists pretend to interpret it from the scriptures while they ignore direct contradictions to that dogma.
@SimonCU Luke didn't create any of the titles of any of the parables. In Luke's gospel, Jesus makes a special point that no one is good except God, not even Jesus himself. "And a ruler asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.'" Luke 18:18-19.
Where did you hear that Jews weren't allowed to say Samaritan? I don't think that's true.
Jesus never name the Parable "Good Samaritan"...He just told the story referring to a Samaritan....Obviously there were good and bad Samaritans but people called him "Good Samaritan", which he was...Maybe funny but can be a bit stupid to watch.
@SimonCU Actually, there was a great deal of prejudice against Samaritans. It would have been unusual for one to have been portrayed in a good light. Do your research.
@CrownedWithLaurels I know this Parable and history of the Jews/Samaritans. Jesus just told the story without giving it a title..Each title of the Bible was given by the writer. The "Good" word was added by Luke. Jesus addressed the person as "Samaritan" It was us who referred him as Good even to this day without the prejudice in today's Christian community. If you read the text you will see that Jesus didn't say "Good" just Samaritan.
i get annoyed with these people who say no one would joke about Islam. the only reason that they don't joke about Islam is because the majority of English people know nothing about Islam, meaning the joke wouldn't be funny.
If any man come to me, and *HATE* not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ~ Jesus F. Christ; Luke 14:26
yo stupid why cant you do the same about mohammed, i know you fear for your life, you scumbags just attack christians cause you think they are helpless.
@DKWegley ...so at this point, you think I'm taking issue with the Bible? Either you're so dim-witted that you can't even grasp my point when I've spelled it out for you, or you're just taking the piss.
Frankly, it doesn't matter. In either one of those cases, continuing to reply would be a pointless effort for me.
@DKWegley I take *logic* seriously, mate. It doesn't take a conservative Christian (which I'm not by a long shot) to look at what you're saying and see that it doesn't match up with the Bible.
You've been insisting this whole time that I'm a die-hard Christian, but...I just like stories, and that's basically what the Bible is. Just because it's part of a religion doesn't mean I'm defending it explicitly *because* of that religion. Same goes for the 'Iliad.'
@DKWegley *sigh* Do you know what 'continuity' refers to? Specifically, canon continuity? See, the 'turn the other cheek' stuff I mentioned occurred *after* all the stuff in the Old Testament. The whole point of the NT was to actually establish that over the existing law of Abraham. You clearly consider God to be a character in a literary work, so why do you expect character growth to retroactively effect things that happened before said growth?
@DKWegley ...what? It's a book. Written by men. Hell, even a good portion of the New Testament is composed of parables, which you're *supposed* to interpret. And besides, if you're so adamant about the "Jesus was a warmonger" theory, why did he A) not lead any wars and B) surrender to his executioners? Seems you're "interpreting" quite a bit that didn't actually happen.
Erm...do you know what 'omnipotent' means? Because it's more about 'capability' than actual action.
@DKWegley And besides, those quotes are fairly simple in their message: non-violent civil resistance against an oppressive power assumes that said power has a conscience. 'Equal rights' and 'respect for all life' weren't exactly characteristics of the Roman Empire. Jesus even had the whole 'those who live by the sword die by the sword' bit, which shoots down your "Jesus was a warmonger" theory. He was saying that violence sometimes *is* the only answer, but it isn't a good answer.
@DKWegley Easy enough. The context of such lines would be a book where he spent most of his time talking about the virtues of turning the other cheek, treating others as you would want to be treated, etc. Remember all that stuff?
lol, really? That's your reason? The Bible's literally the best selling book of all time. And those are quotes...from the Bible. What sort of dystopian future would rid the world of those quotes' original context and then leave *you* as the only source for them?
@DKWegley Okay...but that's characterizing him based on three lines from a book that was decidedly longer than three lines, and similarly by a character who spoke more than three lines. Everything has context, which is a point you've rather missed.
No shit Old Testament God was psychotic. That was his entire shtick. Why are you assuming that I think otherwise?
...yeah, because your words are going to be read "100 million years" from now. You're totally that important.
@DKWegley So? Jesus was, if nothing else, the leader of a grassroots movement against a generally oppressive regime. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't talk about him claiming to be the son of God, and it's mainly those that provide the historical evidence of his existence.
Actually, you decided to add "Jesus was a violent pig" and "I'm happy he is just a silly myth." I'm pretty sure neither of those were "only quoting the alleged words of Christ."
@DKWegley Yeah, and Gandhi was a racist who supported Hitler, but I still see plenty of reasons to admire both him and Jesus (the historical figure, at the least).
@ymalmsteen887 one of the more interesting interpretations of this parable is that it's not just about the kindness from unexpected people etc but an attack on the religious establishment and that the priest and levite didnt help the man because they worried more about preserving their ritual purity than helping a fellow human.
that they perverted their religion into a grotesque caricature of what it was and used it as an excuse for their callousness
anyone realizing that the good Samaritan was not a christian? So how did he get his morals, if he didn't have a direct line to god or a bible to tell him what's good?
Exactly, he got it from himself. Religion is bullshit, even the bible says it's bullshit ;)
@annata12 you are as ignorant as it gets lol. Theist never claim that morals come from the bible....morals come From God and he has created human beings with moral values. So you can be an atheist and still have moral values
@KingDcome11 said "....morals come From God and he has created human beings with moral values."
I'm curious. Where in the Bible does it say that god created humans with moral values?
Even if it were in the Bible, that wouldn't make it any more true than anything else in there, but I'm still curious as to whether or not "your" claim is at least superficially justified.
@MultiNaturalist Romans 2:12-16 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
@MultiNaturalist 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
@KingDcome11 "...Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves..."
This does not indicate that God created humans with moral values, it indicates that nature is the source of conscience behavior, or morality. It shows the Bible to be unnecessary. If you claim god created humans (Adam & Eve), as an explanation for nature, you still have all of your work ahead of you.
@MultiNaturalist Well for us who believe God created us , it tells that that God made us that way. Yes nature is there but if there is a creator then he created nature that way. I don't believe Genesis ought to be taken literary word for word, as the bible was never meant to be interpreted that way. There is a lot of imagery, poetry, narrative and different kind of writings in the bible that require further study. This verse , I don't think God will write the law as the verse it self says that
@KingDcome11 Thank you for the verses.I've heard the lunatic Pat Robertson use this passage to claim that "the law" will be written on men's hearts "after Jesus returns." Verse 16 contradicts the claim that god created Adam & Eve with morals. But I would agree that morality IS natural--as the authors figured out--that it is a byproduct of evolution. Animal behavior is largely determined by evolution. We are no different. If you think otherwise, you have all of your work still ahead of you.
@MultiNaturalist They show that the requirements of the law ARE WRITTEN on their hearts. I think this is talking about present time . It is saying that the Law is written on people's hearts. Here once again we should not think that they are written as writing on a pice of paper but it is a way to say that God has placed those laws in human beings . ( whether he used nature or any other process I don't know for sure.) All i know is that Even when I was atheist I tried to do good and not evil
@KingDcome11 All well and good. But I see you discarded verse 16. This leaves no other mention of god in the passage. How do you come by the claim that "god did it" without this? I suggested that you are imposing your belief that god created humans from dust (and that humans did not evolve) onto the passage. If you are doing this, I suggested that you have all your work still ahead of you (i.e. now you must demonstrate Creation true as well.) Yes, the Bible is neither literal nor true, per se.
@MultiNaturalist I don't get what you mean. How did I discard verse 16? I'm not imposing any belief. I do believe in Evolution but that in no way affects my belief in God. Evolution tells us how we all evolved and for us who think God created life ( not evolved as it is a natural process) God gave birth to life and then everything worked out on its own. Everything in the universe works on it's own. it's like a clock that works on it's own after the creator has made it. it's on it's own
@KingDcome11 Okay. I don't see that we can go much further. While you are not directly contradicting what is known through science, you still mix in an unseen agent, god, without specifying its precise role. Perhaps this works for you, but unfortunately it would also work for pure Creationists who would like to impose an absolute purpose for humans, & therefore impose a literal interpretation of the Bible on us all--spelled Taliban. Left unsaid is how god 'created' life, & for what purpose.
@MultiNaturalist For us Christians , there is a purpose in life. To find your calling and do what you love doing , to love people and help those who need help if it's in your hands. To live a clean and good moral life ( at least try to because we are only human after all). And to Love God with all our hearts. That is our purpose in Life. To live so that when in our dying bed we can have a clean conscious knowing that we tried not to do wrong , we tried to love and live for eternity awaits.
@KingDcome11 These are all good values to possess, & all are secular values except "Love god with all [your] heart," which is a commandment made by Jesus of his followers. Excepting this, most atheists have the same purposes in life, for secular reasons. But this is not the 'purpose' I was referring to. I meant the purpose of Creation, not the purpose of one's noticeably human life. What about cats? What is the purpose of bacteria? This is either an unanswerable or a meaningless question.
@MultiNaturalist And that was the whole point of my argument that we christians never claim that atheists can't have good moral values because the bible tells us that even those who are not christians have these laws or moral code written in their hearts. I really don't know the answer to why there is bacteria instead of not existing. I know that some type of Bacteria is good for humanity and the world and there is also bacteria killing millios of people. Why is there flies or rats?
@KingDcome11 It doesn't say much of someone who can only identify morals in atheists because "the Bible says they have morals." That's lame. Evolution explains the diversity of bacteria, and the existence of flies and rats quite well. There is no "reason" for them being here except that's the way evolution works. None of this has anything to do with the existence of humans -- or what worth other life forms have to us. We are superfluous to the equation.
@MultiNaturalist I don't claim that I know that atheists have morals just because the bible tells me so. As you have admitted yourself science can reassure us that morals are part of humanity and not only religious people. This in fact doesn't contradict what the bible says about this issue, that is that all humans have moral laws within them. Anything and everything that evolution explains doesn't not contradict what I believe since I believe that evolution has occurred.
@TheCMinister what does? we should not everything literally word for word. There is poetry and imagery and so many writting styles that we should take everything into consideration.
@TheCMinister if you interpret it that way then yes the bible would seem foolish . But as I said you have to understand that the bible has different writing styles and that is key to interpreting the bible. The genesis account should not be taken literally . For example , genesis talks about a serpent. The word serpent is just imagery for Satan. ( as revealed later on in other parts of the bible. ) So , if we take that literally , are we really saying a serpent spoke to Eve?
@TheCMinister I understand what you mean. All i know i that all we are and all we believe is thanks to personal experience and knowledge. We all have different kinds of personal experiences and different levels of knowledge which ultimately make us who we are. I didn't choose to believe in God but this path took me here, just like some become atheists, others become christians, others become muslims, we have ex christians , ex atheists, ex muslims. And it's all due to personal experience.
@TheCMinister at the end of the day Christians think atheists are blinded by "the devil", muslims think christians are in the wrong path, Atheists think or "know" that christians are pathetic and don't use their brain , they think the same about muslims. And EVERYONE thinks and truly believes they have the truth. We all have convictions about our beliefs so strong that is very hard for someone to change them or shake them BUT it does happen , it has happened and it will continue to happen.
@TheCMinister I wish I could help you believe but it's not up to me . Just like i'm sure you wish you could "open the eyes" of all religious people . It's not even about being smart b.c there are many great religious scientists or doctors or lawyers . Many great minds that are atheists, muslims, christians, jewish, etc etc.
@KingDcome11 It's not about making you believe. The fact that you have belief makes you less than science. Therefore, your not worth the time of science, therefore your not worth the time of me.
@TheCMinister worthy of science? lol Since when science= atheism? since when my friend? Don't hold onto science as exclusively for atheists. Many great believers in God are scientists my friend. I myself love science for all that has given us and continue to give us. I don't see why believing in god= can't study or accept science. Science job is not to prove there is no god. Science is here to study the physical and material world.In our beliefs god is not material nor physical.
@TheCMinister You do realize that there are so many people who are smarter than you are. Many people who have studied at Harvard and the best schools in the country and the world . And some of these people are believers of God. You do realize this? I'm not saying this is proof God is real but what I'm saying is that there is intelligent people on both sides . Don't believe that only atheists are "smart". As far as I know some of the most intelligent people in history have been believers in God.
@TheCMinister If knowledge in Science meant you can't believe in God then I guess you consider yourself smarter and more knowledgeable in science than all those christians scientist who have studied for their profession. I will just mention one believer which I admire. Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., helped to discover the genetic misspellings that cause cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease, and a rare form of premature aging called progeria. A pioneer gene hunter,
@TheCMinister he led the Human Genome Project from 1993 until 2008. For his revolutionary contributions to genetic research, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007, and the National Medal of Science in 2009. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences . If you think you know more science than this guy I'd like to know your name and where you got your PHD. Science= atheism= ridiculous statement.
Skepticism and rational thought do, however, lead to atheism. Francis Collins simply shuts off his skepticism as far as his religion is concerned. He may be a good biologist, but he's hardly a good skeptic. Faith is neither scientific nor rational. He's compartmentalized his brain for the convenience of his religion.
@dudev Well you are wrong about something. Francis Collins is a former atheist himself just like me. Some of us were first skeptics before we became christians. I'm not saying that just b.c we converted to christianity then that makes God real. Just like christians becoming atheists doesn't make atheism true. Faith is rational for those of us who believe but it's gotta do with personal experience as well. Everyone believes they are right and will always try to defend their beliefs or lack of.
"Francis Collins is a former atheist himself just like me."
The old former-atheist argument. Yawn. You can't proclaim faith in something and then call yourself a skeptic. Faith is belief without evidence, that's its definition. It's incredibly dishonest --first a Christian claims they have evidence, then when they're cornered, they claim it's all based on faith.
@dudev The fact is Collins and I had no faith before becoming christians so we WERE skeptics. The Evidence is there for those who want to study it. You have to look at both sides of the arguments, both sides of evidence and make up your mind.
If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith. I have studied religion; it's empty double-talk designed to control people. I'm not an atheist because of the virtues of atheism, I'm an atheist because of the inadequacies of religion --it's failure to explain anything about the real world.
@dudev Why can't I have both? The evidence is there but it does take faith to believe in something you haven't seen or touched even if there is evidence of their existence. So Yes, in that sense religion requires faith but that faith is based on evidence. In other words, it's reasonable faith as long as it fits the facts of experience. Whether they are scientific or historical. My worldview is actually reinforced by Science and history.
@dudev I respect your opinion about religion and while I agree that some people have used religion to their advantage that doesn't mean every religious person seeks to control people. There is good and bad people everywhere. Politicians sometimes control people yet we all know that not all politics are bad and not all politicians are people seeking control of others. Religion doesn't seek to explain the real world that's why we have science.
"Religion doesn't seek to explain the real world that's why we have science."
Really? Over 50% of Americans are biblical literalists, who think Genesis is a true story. Every year dozens of pieces of legislation are introduced trying to either force creationism into schools or water down the teaching of evolution. Religious groups are the forefront of the climate-change denialism movement. They also spread lies about medical issues such as birth control, etc.
@dudev As far as i know atheism fails to explain anything about the real world too. So does that make atheism bad? atheism is just disbelief in God. Science is NOT= atheism. Science explains the real world and can be appreciated by both Atheist and religious people.
Atheism doesn't CLAIM to explain anything. Science does that. And I never said science is atheism. I said honest skepticism is a path to atheism. And people who selectively apply their skepticism can be religious, just not in the same breath.
@dudev I never said atheism claims to explain anything but you are just bashing on religion because it doesn't explain what science already explains so there is no need for religion to explain it. Honest skepticism can also be a path to becoming religious. Many people have found religion through their studies. Not all skeptics will remember skeptics till they die , I tell you that for sure. And not all religious people will remain religious forever , some might change their mind.
No, I'm bashing on religion because it claims to explain things without evidence. It makes people gullible. And anyone who claims to be a skeptic and religious is playing a game of Jekyll and Hyde. They turn off their skepticism when it's convenient.
Considering the paucity of evidence for a god remains at an all time low, those atheists are only being dishonest with themselves, and abandoning rational thought in exchange for empty faith.
@dudev Why do you keep repeating the same? : "And anyone who claims to be a skeptic and religious." what you mean? who's being religious and skeptic at the same time?There is a difference between being skeptic and then becoming religious which is totally different.
People like Francis Collins live a contradiction. He's skeptical as a scientists. but he doesn't apply that same skepticism to his religion. Why not? Becoming religious requires one to abandon skepticism, at least partly.
You said --"Honest skepticism can also be a path to becoming religious."
No. Shutting off skepticism is a path to religion. And many religious scientists admit they don't apply skeptical thinking to their religion. They give it a free pass.
@dudev Francis Collins was an atheist and became religious because of his studies. He WAS SKEPTIC, that's why he was an atheist. He became a religious person afterwards. How are you gonna compare science with religion? You don't have to be an skeptic once you are convinced that there is a God. Mate, these are 2 different things. Religion is nothing like science. Why would scientist apply skepticism to religion? they don't have to. Science is not there to prove or disprove God.
Then you don't know Francis Collins' story very well. He said he came to his religious beliefs when he saw a frozen waterfall. It had nothing to do with studies. It had everything to do with opening himself up to faith, the opposite of studies or evidence based thinking.
If religion makes claims about the natural world --AND IT DOES ALL THE TIME--then science can comment on the validity of those claims.
@dudev I don't think you understand that Francis doesn't have to be skeptic anymore. Why? because he knows there is a God ( At least he truly believes it.) Why would you ask someone to be skeptic about something they were already skeptic about but no longer feel that way.? Collins doesn't have to be skeptic about something he knows is true. You are only skeptic about things you are not sure about. He did apply this to his life as he's en ex atheist. But once he found evidence he renounced to it.
"Collins doesn't have to be skeptic about something he knows is true."
A truly circular comment. Faith is the opposite of knowledge. You're using the words "belief" and "knowledge" interchangeably, and dancing between the two at your convenience. Collins doesn't KNOW. He believes.
"You are only skeptic about things you are not sure about. "
That's an ignorant comment. True skepticism is never turned off. Only a religious fool thinks he attains absolute truth.
@dudev hahahah Collins became religious because he watched a waterfall? hahah. It seems to me you don't know his story. He became believer in God DURING a hike but not b.c of a waterfall. He studied the evidence for and against God in cosmology for a while before reaching a conclusion. The fact he finally decided there was enough evidence and decided to believe while hiking doesn't mean that was his reason. It's really stupid that anyone would take Collin's seriously if that was the case.
HE FINALLY DECIDED -- That's not evidence; that's personal belief and personal experience, which is not evidence of anything. It's not a reason for anyone else to believe.
@dudev Another evidence that backs up my story is the fact that he has written numerous books on his research that have nothing to do with a waterfalls ahaha. So, what claims does religion exactly make that contradict science? There is some good cosmological arguemnts for the existence of God. God can not be reached through science because science only DEALS with the natural world. If there are some good arguments for the existence of God then you can know for sure whether God must be real or
"There is some good cosmological arguemnts for the existence of God"
Generic cosmological arguments for A GOD, not a specific god. Why not a million gods? Or super gods ruling above the normal gods? But nothing concrete or specific.
@dudev Not. I guess SOME people WILL find God through their research and philosophy. Some things are better explained philosophical. We will never know everything for sure. But there is good arguments to believe there is a God and we are not here merely by chance. I guess Antony Flew , one leading atheist is also dishonest? After abandon atheism.? Not only that, but one of the books that convinced Flew of the existence of God was also recommended by some bright honest atheists like
@dudev 1) When have I argued for a specific God? 2) I never claimed Science could prove God because Science only deals with natural world. 3) Why does it matter if Cosmological arguments are for a God and not a specific God? does it make a difference when all you are trying to argue for is the existence of a God? 4) Personal experience is ONE MAJOR part for belief in God. So? You not experiencing something doesn't make it false. 5) I wanted to throw Flew's name out there because , you accuse
@dudev Collins of being dishonest (Even though you have provided no evidence or support for such claim) and I wanted to know if You think Flew is dishonest too? I'm not saying is a rule for people to become believers of God but it just goes to show that studying cosmological arguments for the existence of God CAN change people's minds. Your whole argument consists of accusing of dishonesty to anyone who was an atheist and now believes in some type of God but have no evidence to back that up
@dudev The fact that many skeptics have come to believe in some type of god proves that it is possible to change your mind and believe in a God. Just cause you have not experienced it doesn't mean others haven't. Again, this is not rule for belief in god, to say that just because others have changed their mind then that is proof of God's existence- I'm not saying that. But what I'm proving is that IT IS possible to believe.
@dudev So? My whole point has always been that Religious people can become atheists and atheists can become religious. This happens everyday all around the world. YOU ARE THE ONE claiming that it's impossible for skeptics to come to believe in god. The truth is , it is not impossible. The truth is atheists change their minds too and it's not because they are just lying to themselves or being dishonest. Why would they wanna believe in god? unless they have found convincing arguments?
"YOU ARE THE ONE claiming that it's impossible for skeptics to come to believe in god"
I said it's only possible if they turn off their skepticism as far as their religion is concerned. A scientist like Collins wouldn't be religious if he applied the same skepticism he uses in his work to his religion. Religion can't survive scientific scrutiny. That's why many people believe in god solely based on faith and nothing more.
@dudev haha I really don't know how to make you understand that religion has nothing to do with science. You don't have to be skeptic about science observations in the same way you are about religion. WHY? Well, that's simple. Science is all about the natural and god or religions beliefs are outside this natural world and therefore can not be tested in the way science can test their findings. You can easily be a believer in god and be a scientist at the same tame. Matter fact, Almost 50 %
Don't worry, Einstein, I've never made the mistake of confusing religion with science. I just want to know why you think religion is exempt from scientific scrutiny when it makes claims about the natural world. Surely it's hypocritical for you to say religion has nothing to do with science, and then you try to use science to support religion, as you did in your previous comments about cosmology. You can't have it both ways.
@dudev " I just want to know why you think religion is exempt from scientific scrutiny when it makes claims about the natural world." It's not as long as those claims don't contradict what is known to be facts according to scientific findings. Science doesn't look to discover God, it just looks to study the world around us. Some scientist have found that their discoveries have actually help them reinforce their belief in a god. You don't have to be a dishonest scientist just cause you
@dudev believe in god. So long as they do not interfere with eachother. Those religions make claims about the natural world? sure it does, it says that the universe had a beginning for example. Didn't the universe had a beginning? ok then , THIS FACT helps them reinforce their beliefs in a god. Don't ever forget that the proponent of the big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest. He was the first person to propose the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.
@dudev So , as long as science and your religion do not interfere than you can have both. But you can't prove. But Science never seeks to prove or disprove gods. There are findings that will either help people believe even more or help others disbelieve. The supernatural can't be proved that's why science doesn't seek to explain it but just cause YOU have not experienced something supernatural doesn't make it untrue.
@dudev of leading scientists in America have or claim religious beliefs. Don't confuse science with religion, 2 different things mate. You can easily be a believer in god as long as your beliefs don't interfere with what are known facts about science and the world today. You should really stop watching dawkins or Hitchens because IT IS FALSE, A LIE that in order to be a scientist you have to be an atheist. THE FACTS prove otherwise.
The supernatural is unprovable, so you can't say anything about it. By definition it's beyond analysis. So you're basically admitting that religious belief is not achieved by study. It can't be if the subject is untestable. And there's no good reason to exempt religion from scientific scrutiny; it makes claims about the natural world all the time. Hence, religious scientists have to rationalize their unscientific beliefs. Try reading Dawkins and Hitchens.
@dudev "So you're basically admitting that religious belief is not achieved by study" They are if you are an atheist who's open to study the material like Flew, Collins and many others. There are others who just "believe" which I think is ridiculous since One must learn to question even his own beliefs, I have others have. So there are others who Believe already but through their study their beliefs are even more reinforced.
@dudev I think you are reading too much Dawkins and hitchens lol. Great comedians but not so great writers. Philosophically speaking ( Yes' philosophy can be used to argue for or against God, so not only science is used in arguments for or against God), Dawkins is a joke . Go read reviews on Dawkins book the "God Delusion," Even own Atheists feel ashamed of the book. Hitchens? His best arguments against God are against people who believe in God and not god himself. he's a comedian.
I doesn't sound like you've read either of them. They've thoroughly addressed the fallacies you keep mentioning. And Dawkins and Hitchens don't have the burden to disprove god. No atheist has that burden. The burden of proof is on the believer. So the question is --What's your best argument for god. If you've presented your best one here, then you've already failed. Pleas to cosmology for a generic god and arguments from authority are not evidence.
@dudev What fallacies do I keep mentioning again? "And Dawkins and Hitchens don't have the burden to disprove god" that never stopped Dawkins from writing "The God delusion" which is pretty much an attack on religion and religious people but not on god himself. " If you've presented your best one here, then you've already failed" So Far I have no presented arguments at all. Let's go by parts. So far I have presented arguments that Scientists CAN Be religious and I have made my case.
I didn't say it was impossible or particularly unethical. I said it requires one to compartmentalize one's brain --to turn off one's skeptical thinking. And you've admitted as much when you said science can't analyze god. Well, if someone believes strongly in something that can't be studied, then that's the opposite of being skeptical or scientific. That makes it hypocritical.
And I doubt you've read "The God Delusion" so don't embarrass yourself by commenting on it.
@dudev You called Collins dishonest because he believed in god and was a scientist. I proved to you that it is possible to be a scientist and not be a hypocrite about it. (like people really become believers in a god b.c they don't believe? haha). One doesn't use skepticism in science in the way they do in religion because they are 2 different things. Science can help reinforce your belief in god but it can't prove or disprove any gods.
Collins is dishonest with himself. You have to be able to provide a legitimate argument as to why religion should be exempt from scientific scrutiny---and you haven't done so. Religion makes claims about the natural world. So why shouldn't Collins focus his skeptical mind on those claims, instead of just having faith in an untestable supernatural force, which he calls god? It's inconsistent to give religion a special pass.
@dudev "why religion should be exempt from scientific scrutiny" I already told you, Religion is not. Science doesn't look to study god or gods or the supernatural. Science only deals with what's observable. You can actually help your faith be reinforced by looking at science discoveries. I never said that science discoveries and facts can't be used against or in favor of religion but even then it's not enough to prove or disprove god.
@dudev There are many other ways to argue for God, you can add science to the arguments, they would still fall in favor of religion if you choose to use them. But you can use philosophy (metaphysics) as good arguments. There will never be 100 % proof of God's existence but there is good arguments that point to a God. And then , personal experience does come into action to. But don't confuse religion or god as something natural. If there is a god he must not be natural
@dudev therefore he can't be studied in the way science studies NATURAL things. 2 Different things man. The fact that almost 50 % of all leading scientists have some type of faith shows that being an atheist is not a requirement to be a good scientist. "atheists and philosophers did criticize Dawkins' basic approach to philosophy" Wasn't that what I said? Didn't I said his philosophy was really poor? so why are you complaining? lol Dawkins has a personal opinion but I'm sorry to tell you
@dudev that not all scientists agree with dawkins. Almost 50% of leading scientist in america believe that belief in god is reasonable and there are good arguments for it. Actually the burden of rpoof lies on both sides. If an atheists comes to me and says "There is no God" then he must account for his words and prove that there is no god. In God delusion Dawkins tries to "prove" that believing in god is a delusion ( he must prove it) but did he? I thought it was laughable how he
I don't believe you for a second. You wouldn't be making such silly comments if you had read it. Many atheists and philosophers did criticize Dawkins' basic approach to philosophy, but they approved of his overall message, that religion has nothing to support it, but faith and vapid arguments. And It doesn't matter if Dawkins fails or not because as I keep pointing out THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON ATHEISTS. The burden is on believers, and they fail every time.
@dudev spent most of his time attacking religion but not god really. It seems like you don't understand that it is reasonable to believe in a god. Why do you think there is so many debates? Many debates won by theists ( Like John lenox destroying Richard dawkins) and many others are won by atheists. And many other debates never happen (Like dawkins refusing to debate William Craig..afraid much?). If it was so easy to prove or disprove a god , so long ago everything would have been settled.
@dudev By Now I hope you FINALLY understand that YES it's possible and ethical to be a scientist and believer. NO, you are not a dishonest person just because you love science and believe in god. Do we agree? You have presented no arguemnts or evidence that would say otherwise besides the "you ca't be a scientist and believe in god because In say so". I await your response.
@dudev 2 Nobel Prize Winners (Charles Townes, inventor of the laser; and Arno Penzias, who co-discovered Cosmic Microwave Bacground Radiation), and also physicist (and non-believer) Robert Jastrow. THERE ARE good arguments for the existence of God. If you have already made up your mind, nothing will convince you or change your mind. True skepticism is never turned off? it depends on what you want to be skeptic about. You can't be skeptic about why the grass is green because we know why is green.
There is no scientific evidence for a god, so a making arguments from authority (a logical fallacy) is not going to help your case. And you're not arguing for a generic god, you're arguing for a very specific god, the god of the bible. You can't make generic arguments for a god and expect them to support your specific god. That's just deceitful.
@dudev It is Collin's studies that led him to God. There are 2 types of smart christians: those who's study will lead them closer to God and those who's study will lead them away from God. There are 2 types of truth seeking atheists ; those who's study will reaffirm their skepticism and those who's study and investigation will make them question their lack of belief. This happens everyday from both sides and even from other religions and beliefs. rational people on both sides.
@MultiNaturalist I don't know. We all wish we could do without them. what's the purpose of a cat? I don't know but all I know is that cats are doing good to human existence as they are the most acquired animal as pet in the world.It seems like everything there is is due to the fact that the world we live in has the necessary properties for the existence of all there is. I wish out teeth would not get cavities, i wish we wouldn't need water to survive but it's just all part of who we are.
@MultiNaturalist Imagine that this is all by chance.... Why do we need a heart? why do we even need a brain? why do have 2 legs instead of 3? or 2 eyes instead of 1 or 4? why do we have 2 ears instead of 6? why do we have 1 nose instead of 2? why is that that by chance we function by going to the bathroom instead of not going . B chance we need to sleep instead of not sleeping , why do we get tired instead of not? We are all perfect for this world just the way we are and whether we are here
@KingDcome11 "why do have 2 legs instead of 3? or 2 eyes instead of 1 or 4? why do we have 2 ears instead of 6?" -- The simple answer: we have 2 legs because we inherited our 2 legs from primates, our forebears in evolution. The same is true of the other body parts you mentioned. We inherited them from our forebears. Had our forebears possessed 3 legs, we would have 3 legs. Simple. And where there is divergence from our forebears, fossils would indicate the transition. They do this quite well.
@MultiNaturalist by chance or by the finger of a supreme being it seems either chance created us this way and we are made or evolved according to what surround us ( to breath we need lungs or do we breath because we have lungs?) . I guess we'll never know.
@MultiNaturalist and we could say the same about God for those of us who believe in one. Why do we have 2 legs instead of three god? and we could go on. But we will still be left with no answer.
I'm a christian and the video did make me smile. I don't know where the arguments below are from. Science will never replace religion. There are things that science will never able to explain. Science is just a method for humans to understand the world and our vocation - we are born to search the reunion with God.
QingyaLiu 5 days ago
@QingyaLiu
The fact that science can't explain everything, doesn't mean religion can explain anything. Religion fails at explaining, so it demands people to have faith.
dudev 4 days ago
@dudev well I'm not only a Christian but also a science person. Although I did struggle a little earlier, but now, I don't see a distinguish between science and my Faith. I didn't say religion is able to explain everything. I don't even need my Faith to explain anything to me. The only thing I need is I know that there is someone that loves me so much, and I'm supposed to pass on the love to other people. And whatever happens, there's a plan for me, and I never need to lose hope
QingyaLiu 4 days ago
"Jesus Christ"
"WHAT???"
Gets me every time.
hendrickx88 1 month ago
Jesus tells the story of the Samaritan Tosser...now that shit is funny!!
superhornet69 1 month ago
Hmm! I wonder if "socialy acceptable/unacceptable behaviors" fit in the "godgiven moral values" scene and vice versa?
EctoBuzz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DidYouJustMakeThatUp, said "Jesus was a white middle eastern Jew with an English accent. LMAO.."
No, obviously Jesus was a six foot tall blonde, blue-eyed Italian with an immaculately groomed beard.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
They were allowed to say bad things about Samaitans but not allowed to say good things about them because they were enemies..It's like Jews saying good things about Nazis..In this parable the teacher felt uncomfortable to say the Samaritan was a neighbor - its like saying a Nazi is his neighbor..It's psychological reason. Also read it from wikipedia if you search on this parable.
SimonCU 3 months ago
@DidYouJustMakeThatUp : That is actually 100% true. Fact.
geodesicks 3 months ago
LOL! I don't think Jesus ever says "Stick with this"...
MayaCherry86 4 months ago
@CrownedWithLaurels Also Jesus was careful not to say "Good" cuz He wanted to ask the teacher of the law after the Parable "Who do you think is the neighbor to the Injured Jew?" If he said "good" He would have given everyone the answer. Also Jews were not allowed to even say Samaritan so the teacher of the Law said "The one who had mercy on him" Without saying Samaritan.It's a very sensitive topic in the time of Jesus. Jesus made many Jewish enemies because He broke many Jewish Tradition/Law.
SimonCU 5 months ago
@SimonCU Actually you got it wrong, Jesus is God, and he did not broke any laws, Remember in the beginning He did Created those Laws for them...I not saying anyones wrong here, Even though they are following the Tradition law Way, they are doing it, but doing it in the wrong way...
MayaCherry86 4 months ago
@MayaCherry86 He did break the Sabbath law.He said"The Sabbath was made for man,not man for the Sabbath".And he did feel the greatest commandant was "LOVE" and everything else comes after that.That is why it is so difficult to go to heaven.Many Christians follow the small commandments but find it difficult to love someone who is different from them(outcast).Even a high Priest/Levi who live his life praying,reading the holy book, living in the church can't enter heaven without loving an outcast.
SimonCU 4 months ago
@SimonCU First You Should Pray and Ask the Lord For yourself...Cause if you had the Holy Spirit, you would Understand it by now...With the Holy Spirit he Explain Many things to make you Understand the Whole Concept about the Beginning and for is to Come, Can you even Imaged to know a True Deep Meaning from Him? He Would Tell you Many Things that You Might Not Even Know Or See. Yes I've Been Born-Again in the Spirit, And I have Seen Him,If You Seek, and Knock the Door Should be Open on to you..
MayaCherry86 4 months ago
@MayaCherry86 I'm not sayin who has the Holy Spirit&who don't.Im just saying that the Parable is very plan simple.Jesus used simple sentences and it is clear why He said"Do this and you will have eternal life".In the Parable he picked on the Priest and Levi who think they were religious.But a normal Samaritan had mercy on an enemy.Who do you think inherited eternal life?To be born again means nothing if you can't love your enemy.This parable makes a lot of Religious people feel uncomfortable.
SimonCU 4 months ago
@MayaCherry86 Also the teacher of the law who made Jesus tell this parable might not have the holy spirit but he knew and understood Jesus by saying "The one who had mercy on him"..When Jesus heard this reply He was pleased and ordered him "Do this and you will have eternal life"...Remember this teacher of the law knew what Jesus was talking about is most likely didn't have the Holy Spirit on him or born again..That is why even without the holy spirit it's understandable.
SimonCU 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SimonCU, said "He was pleased and ordered him "Do this and you will have eternal life"...Remember this teacher of the law knew what Jesus was talking about is most likely didn't have the Holy Spirit on him or born again..That is why even without the holy spirit it's understandable."
You're a nut-job.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MayaCherry86 Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me......... What a sadistic bastard... I mean he doesn't want to do the deed himself, he wants to be a spectator.
thehappyhacker1 4 weeks ago
@MayaCherry86 said, "Actually you got it wrong, Jesus is God, and he did not broke any laws..."
Sorry, but that's non-gospel dogma. In John 8, "Jesus" makes it clear that he and 'god' are two different people. He supposedly had 33 some odd number of years to say "Hey everyone, I'm freakin 'god'", and yet modern day self-serving apologists pretend to interpret it from the scriptures while they ignore direct contradictions to that dogma.
Hail Imaginary Satan
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
@SimonCU Luke didn't create any of the titles of any of the parables. In Luke's gospel, Jesus makes a special point that no one is good except God, not even Jesus himself. "And a ruler asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.'" Luke 18:18-19.
Where did you hear that Jews weren't allowed to say Samaritan? I don't think that's true.
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
Jesus never name the Parable "Good Samaritan"...He just told the story referring to a Samaritan....Obviously there were good and bad Samaritans but people called him "Good Samaritan", which he was...Maybe funny but can be a bit stupid to watch.
SimonCU 5 months ago
@SimonCU how do u no wat he did faggot
catkiller829 5 months ago
@catkiller829 Sorry I don't understand your English...Can you rephrase?
SimonCU 5 months ago
@SimonCU He meant 'How do you know what he did? Faggot.'
drbuk96 4 months ago
@SimonCU Actually, there was a great deal of prejudice against Samaritans. It would have been unusual for one to have been portrayed in a good light. Do your research.
CrownedWithLaurels 5 months ago
@CrownedWithLaurels I know this Parable and history of the Jews/Samaritans. Jesus just told the story without giving it a title..Each title of the Bible was given by the writer. The "Good" word was added by Luke. Jesus addressed the person as "Samaritan" It was us who referred him as Good even to this day without the prejudice in today's Christian community. If you read the text you will see that Jesus didn't say "Good" just Samaritan.
SimonCU 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Miguelc271086 6 months ago
i get annoyed with these people who say no one would joke about Islam. the only reason that they don't joke about Islam is because the majority of English people know nothing about Islam, meaning the joke wouldn't be funny.
KatTheFrog 6 months ago
@KatTheFrog and they are afraid someone might try to decapitate them , like they did with theo van gogh.
topperheartramada 5 months ago
Jesus Christ!
abluecarrot1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If any man come to me, and *HATE* not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ~ Jesus F. Christ; Luke 14:26
lucisferre257 6 months ago
Oh c'mon, that was funny... J
Ninure 6 months ago
I had no idea how many people doesn't believe in God, Jesus or both. There is to much evidance that there was a Jesus...
fatalmayu 7 months ago
@fatalmayu such as...?
TheOmegajuice 6 months ago
yo stupid why cant you do the same about mohammed, i know you fear for your life, you scumbags just attack christians cause you think they are helpless.
fossilshale 7 months ago
@fossilshale They might be just as misguided but at least Mohammed was real.
chrisofnottingham 7 months ago
@fossilshale So every time a person makes a joke about Jesus they have to make a joke about Mohammed as well...
That's a bit overly PC isn't it?
TheOmegajuice 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DKWegley you will burn in hell, you are a scum bag
fossilshale 7 months ago
thats bullshit, it was Aramaic not English lol
fikimiki44 7 months ago
@DKWegley ...so at this point, you think I'm taking issue with the Bible? Either you're so dim-witted that you can't even grasp my point when I've spelled it out for you, or you're just taking the piss.
Frankly, it doesn't matter. In either one of those cases, continuing to reply would be a pointless effort for me.
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley Yeah. And my point was that your point didn't make sense.
Oh well. You've fallen back on, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine," and I've no reason to continue an argument that's already been won.
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley I take *logic* seriously, mate. It doesn't take a conservative Christian (which I'm not by a long shot) to look at what you're saying and see that it doesn't match up with the Bible.
You've been insisting this whole time that I'm a die-hard Christian, but...I just like stories, and that's basically what the Bible is. Just because it's part of a religion doesn't mean I'm defending it explicitly *because* of that religion. Same goes for the 'Iliad.'
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley *sigh* Do you know what 'continuity' refers to? Specifically, canon continuity? See, the 'turn the other cheek' stuff I mentioned occurred *after* all the stuff in the Old Testament. The whole point of the NT was to actually establish that over the existing law of Abraham. You clearly consider God to be a character in a literary work, so why do you expect character growth to retroactively effect things that happened before said growth?
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley ...what? It's a book. Written by men. Hell, even a good portion of the New Testament is composed of parables, which you're *supposed* to interpret. And besides, if you're so adamant about the "Jesus was a warmonger" theory, why did he A) not lead any wars and B) surrender to his executioners? Seems you're "interpreting" quite a bit that didn't actually happen.
Erm...do you know what 'omnipotent' means? Because it's more about 'capability' than actual action.
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley And besides, those quotes are fairly simple in their message: non-violent civil resistance against an oppressive power assumes that said power has a conscience. 'Equal rights' and 'respect for all life' weren't exactly characteristics of the Roman Empire. Jesus even had the whole 'those who live by the sword die by the sword' bit, which shoots down your "Jesus was a warmonger" theory. He was saying that violence sometimes *is* the only answer, but it isn't a good answer.
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley Easy enough. The context of such lines would be a book where he spent most of his time talking about the virtues of turning the other cheek, treating others as you would want to be treated, etc. Remember all that stuff?
lol, really? That's your reason? The Bible's literally the best selling book of all time. And those are quotes...from the Bible. What sort of dystopian future would rid the world of those quotes' original context and then leave *you* as the only source for them?
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley Okay...but that's characterizing him based on three lines from a book that was decidedly longer than three lines, and similarly by a character who spoke more than three lines. Everything has context, which is a point you've rather missed.
No shit Old Testament God was psychotic. That was his entire shtick. Why are you assuming that I think otherwise?
...yeah, because your words are going to be read "100 million years" from now. You're totally that important.
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley So? Jesus was, if nothing else, the leader of a grassroots movement against a generally oppressive regime. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't talk about him claiming to be the son of God, and it's mainly those that provide the historical evidence of his existence.
Actually, you decided to add "Jesus was a violent pig" and "I'm happy he is just a silly myth." I'm pretty sure neither of those were "only quoting the alleged words of Christ."
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley Yeah, and Gandhi was a racist who supported Hitler, but I still see plenty of reasons to admire both him and Jesus (the historical figure, at the least).
electricbayonet2 8 months ago
@DKWegley
Great point!
TurpisHaereticus 9 months ago
3 samaritans have watched this.
Kan2209 10 months ago 3
Hahaha...Jesus is a joke.
BetaDeltaCebu 10 months ago
@ymalmsteen887 one of the more interesting interpretations of this parable is that it's not just about the kindness from unexpected people etc but an attack on the religious establishment and that the priest and levite didnt help the man because they worried more about preserving their ritual purity than helping a fellow human.
that they perverted their religion into a grotesque caricature of what it was and used it as an excuse for their callousness
remind you of any current major religions?
mytimetravellingdog 10 months ago
Why do they have british accents?
GLSUMAN12 10 months ago
@GLSUMAN12 because as we all know God was British so his son would also have a british accent :P
mytimetravellingdog 10 months ago
@mytimetravellingdog Yes, as the original Bedazzled, Time Bandits and many other films have taught us, God is the upperclass Brit of the year.
Bfdidc 9 months ago
Holy Cow! Jesus is a racist!
BetaDeltaCebu 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wildwoodclaire is a drunk who cannot tolerate differing opinions
dsdougharty 10 months ago
That's actually a Pythagorean story the Christians co-opted.
HConstantine 10 months ago
Who makes these shows? I've seen a few on youtube and love them. Is there a channel showing more?
NarLiv 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOLLOW JESUS TEACHINGS:
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Luke 19:26-27
Check it! Its really in The Bible, you peaceful christians!
BigLebowsk 10 months ago
anyone realizing that the good Samaritan was not a christian? So how did he get his morals, if he didn't have a direct line to god or a bible to tell him what's good?
Exactly, he got it from himself. Religion is bullshit, even the bible says it's bullshit ;)
annata12 11 months ago 18
@annata12 you are as ignorant as it gets lol. Theist never claim that morals come from the bible....morals come From God and he has created human beings with moral values. So you can be an atheist and still have moral values
KingDcome11 3 months ago
@KingDcome11 said "....morals come From God and he has created human beings with moral values."
I'm curious. Where in the Bible does it say that god created humans with moral values?
Even if it were in the Bible, that wouldn't make it any more true than anything else in there, but I'm still curious as to whether or not "your" claim is at least superficially justified.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist Romans 2:12-16 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 "...Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves..."
This does not indicate that God created humans with moral values, it indicates that nature is the source of conscience behavior, or morality. It shows the Bible to be unnecessary. If you claim god created humans (Adam & Eve), as an explanation for nature, you still have all of your work ahead of you.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist Well for us who believe God created us , it tells that that God made us that way. Yes nature is there but if there is a creator then he created nature that way. I don't believe Genesis ought to be taken literary word for word, as the bible was never meant to be interpreted that way. There is a lot of imagery, poetry, narrative and different kind of writings in the bible that require further study. This verse , I don't think God will write the law as the verse it self says that
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 Thank you for the verses.I've heard the lunatic Pat Robertson use this passage to claim that "the law" will be written on men's hearts "after Jesus returns." Verse 16 contradicts the claim that god created Adam & Eve with morals. But I would agree that morality IS natural--as the authors figured out--that it is a byproduct of evolution. Animal behavior is largely determined by evolution. We are no different. If you think otherwise, you have all of your work still ahead of you.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist They show that the requirements of the law ARE WRITTEN on their hearts. I think this is talking about present time . It is saying that the Law is written on people's hearts. Here once again we should not think that they are written as writing on a pice of paper but it is a way to say that God has placed those laws in human beings . ( whether he used nature or any other process I don't know for sure.) All i know is that Even when I was atheist I tried to do good and not evil
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 All well and good. But I see you discarded verse 16. This leaves no other mention of god in the passage. How do you come by the claim that "god did it" without this? I suggested that you are imposing your belief that god created humans from dust (and that humans did not evolve) onto the passage. If you are doing this, I suggested that you have all your work still ahead of you (i.e. now you must demonstrate Creation true as well.) Yes, the Bible is neither literal nor true, per se.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist I don't get what you mean. How did I discard verse 16? I'm not imposing any belief. I do believe in Evolution but that in no way affects my belief in God. Evolution tells us how we all evolved and for us who think God created life ( not evolved as it is a natural process) God gave birth to life and then everything worked out on its own. Everything in the universe works on it's own. it's like a clock that works on it's own after the creator has made it. it's on it's own
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 Okay. I don't see that we can go much further. While you are not directly contradicting what is known through science, you still mix in an unseen agent, god, without specifying its precise role. Perhaps this works for you, but unfortunately it would also work for pure Creationists who would like to impose an absolute purpose for humans, & therefore impose a literal interpretation of the Bible on us all--spelled Taliban. Left unsaid is how god 'created' life, & for what purpose.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist For us Christians , there is a purpose in life. To find your calling and do what you love doing , to love people and help those who need help if it's in your hands. To live a clean and good moral life ( at least try to because we are only human after all). And to Love God with all our hearts. That is our purpose in Life. To live so that when in our dying bed we can have a clean conscious knowing that we tried not to do wrong , we tried to love and live for eternity awaits.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 These are all good values to possess, & all are secular values except "Love god with all [your] heart," which is a commandment made by Jesus of his followers. Excepting this, most atheists have the same purposes in life, for secular reasons. But this is not the 'purpose' I was referring to. I meant the purpose of Creation, not the purpose of one's noticeably human life. What about cats? What is the purpose of bacteria? This is either an unanswerable or a meaningless question.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist And that was the whole point of my argument that we christians never claim that atheists can't have good moral values because the bible tells us that even those who are not christians have these laws or moral code written in their hearts. I really don't know the answer to why there is bacteria instead of not existing. I know that some type of Bacteria is good for humanity and the world and there is also bacteria killing millios of people. Why is there flies or rats?
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 It doesn't say much of someone who can only identify morals in atheists because "the Bible says they have morals." That's lame. Evolution explains the diversity of bacteria, and the existence of flies and rats quite well. There is no "reason" for them being here except that's the way evolution works. None of this has anything to do with the existence of humans -- or what worth other life forms have to us. We are superfluous to the equation.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist I don't claim that I know that atheists have morals just because the bible tells me so. As you have admitted yourself science can reassure us that morals are part of humanity and not only religious people. This in fact doesn't contradict what the bible says about this issue, that is that all humans have moral laws within them. Anything and everything that evolution explains doesn't not contradict what I believe since I believe that evolution has occurred.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 It contridicts that God made the world in 7 Days, and that's just for starters.
TheCMinister 1 month ago
@TheCMinister what does? we should not everything literally word for word. There is poetry and imagery and so many writting styles that we should take everything into consideration.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 Evolution did not take 7 days. That's why they contradict. The Bible isn't really good for anything.
TheCMinister 1 month ago
@TheCMinister if you interpret it that way then yes the bible would seem foolish . But as I said you have to understand that the bible has different writing styles and that is key to interpreting the bible. The genesis account should not be taken literally . For example , genesis talks about a serpent. The word serpent is just imagery for Satan. ( as revealed later on in other parts of the bible. ) So , if we take that literally , are we really saying a serpent spoke to Eve?
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 I'm saying that none of it should be believed to be true.
TheCMinister 1 month ago
@TheCMinister Well that's your personal opinion and you must have your reasons to believe that and I respect that while not agreeing with it.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 That's fair enough. Although it's more about "Lack of Belief" more than "Believing" in it.
TheCMinister 1 month ago
@TheCMinister I understand what you mean. All i know i that all we are and all we believe is thanks to personal experience and knowledge. We all have different kinds of personal experiences and different levels of knowledge which ultimately make us who we are. I didn't choose to believe in God but this path took me here, just like some become atheists, others become christians, others become muslims, we have ex christians , ex atheists, ex muslims. And it's all due to personal experience.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@TheCMinister at the end of the day Christians think atheists are blinded by "the devil", muslims think christians are in the wrong path, Atheists think or "know" that christians are pathetic and don't use their brain , they think the same about muslims. And EVERYONE thinks and truly believes they have the truth. We all have convictions about our beliefs so strong that is very hard for someone to change them or shake them BUT it does happen , it has happened and it will continue to happen.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@TheCMinister I wish I could help you believe but it's not up to me . Just like i'm sure you wish you could "open the eyes" of all religious people . It's not even about being smart b.c there are many great religious scientists or doctors or lawyers . Many great minds that are atheists, muslims, christians, jewish, etc etc.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11 It's not about making you believe. The fact that you have belief makes you less than science. Therefore, your not worth the time of science, therefore your not worth the time of me.
TheCMinister 1 month ago
@TheCMinister and yes, I do see the irony of s reply as an ironic statement, but I feel it worthy, when it comes to your imaginary friend.
TheCMinister 1 month ago
@TheCMinister worthy of science? lol Since when science= atheism? since when my friend? Don't hold onto science as exclusively for atheists. Many great believers in God are scientists my friend. I myself love science for all that has given us and continue to give us. I don't see why believing in god= can't study or accept science. Science job is not to prove there is no god. Science is here to study the physical and material world.In our beliefs god is not material nor physical.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@TheCMinister You do realize that there are so many people who are smarter than you are. Many people who have studied at Harvard and the best schools in the country and the world . And some of these people are believers of God. You do realize this? I'm not saying this is proof God is real but what I'm saying is that there is intelligent people on both sides . Don't believe that only atheists are "smart". As far as I know some of the most intelligent people in history have been believers in God.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@TheCMinister If knowledge in Science meant you can't believe in God then I guess you consider yourself smarter and more knowledgeable in science than all those christians scientist who have studied for their profession. I will just mention one believer which I admire. Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., helped to discover the genetic misspellings that cause cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease, and a rare form of premature aging called progeria. A pioneer gene hunter,
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@TheCMinister he led the Human Genome Project from 1993 until 2008. For his revolutionary contributions to genetic research, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007, and the National Medal of Science in 2009. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences . If you think you know more science than this guy I'd like to know your name and where you got your PHD. Science= atheism= ridiculous statement.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@KingDcome11
Skepticism and rational thought do, however, lead to atheism. Francis Collins simply shuts off his skepticism as far as his religion is concerned. He may be a good biologist, but he's hardly a good skeptic. Faith is neither scientific nor rational. He's compartmentalized his brain for the convenience of his religion.
dudev 1 week ago
@dudev Well you are wrong about something. Francis Collins is a former atheist himself just like me. Some of us were first skeptics before we became christians. I'm not saying that just b.c we converted to christianity then that makes God real. Just like christians becoming atheists doesn't make atheism true. Faith is rational for those of us who believe but it's gotta do with personal experience as well. Everyone believes they are right and will always try to defend their beliefs or lack of.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
@KingDcome11
"Francis Collins is a former atheist himself just like me."
The old former-atheist argument. Yawn. You can't proclaim faith in something and then call yourself a skeptic. Faith is belief without evidence, that's its definition. It's incredibly dishonest --first a Christian claims they have evidence, then when they're cornered, they claim it's all based on faith.
"Faith is rational for those of us who believe"
The most circular argument award goes to.
dudev 1 week ago
@dudev The fact is Collins and I had no faith before becoming christians so we WERE skeptics. The Evidence is there for those who want to study it. You have to look at both sides of the arguments, both sides of evidence and make up your mind.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
@KingDcome11
If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith. I have studied religion; it's empty double-talk designed to control people. I'm not an atheist because of the virtues of atheism, I'm an atheist because of the inadequacies of religion --it's failure to explain anything about the real world.
dudev 1 week ago
@dudev Why can't I have both? The evidence is there but it does take faith to believe in something you haven't seen or touched even if there is evidence of their existence. So Yes, in that sense religion requires faith but that faith is based on evidence. In other words, it's reasonable faith as long as it fits the facts of experience. Whether they are scientific or historical. My worldview is actually reinforced by Science and history.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
@dudev I respect your opinion about religion and while I agree that some people have used religion to their advantage that doesn't mean every religious person seeks to control people. There is good and bad people everywhere. Politicians sometimes control people yet we all know that not all politics are bad and not all politicians are people seeking control of others. Religion doesn't seek to explain the real world that's why we have science.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KingDcome11
"Religion doesn't seek to explain the real world that's why we have science."
Really? Over 50% of Americans are biblical literalists, who think Genesis is a true story. Every year dozens of pieces of legislation are introduced trying to either force creationism into schools or water down the teaching of evolution. Religious groups are the forefront of the climate-change denialism movement. They also spread lies about medical issues such as birth control, etc.
dudev 6 days ago
@dudev As far as i know atheism fails to explain anything about the real world too. So does that make atheism bad? atheism is just disbelief in God. Science is NOT= atheism. Science explains the real world and can be appreciated by both Atheist and religious people.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
@KingDcome11
Atheism doesn't CLAIM to explain anything. Science does that. And I never said science is atheism. I said honest skepticism is a path to atheism. And people who selectively apply their skepticism can be religious, just not in the same breath.
dudev 6 days ago
@dudev I never said atheism claims to explain anything but you are just bashing on religion because it doesn't explain what science already explains so there is no need for religion to explain it. Honest skepticism can also be a path to becoming religious. Many people have found religion through their studies. Not all skeptics will remember skeptics till they die , I tell you that for sure. And not all religious people will remain religious forever , some might change their mind.
KingDcome11 6 days ago
@KingDcome11
No, I'm bashing on religion because it claims to explain things without evidence. It makes people gullible. And anyone who claims to be a skeptic and religious is playing a game of Jekyll and Hyde. They turn off their skepticism when it's convenient.
dudev 5 days ago
@dudev I'm sorry to break it off to you but not all skeptics remain skeptics. Some honest atheists change their mind along the road.
KingDcome11 6 days ago
@KingDcome11
Considering the paucity of evidence for a god remains at an all time low, those atheists are only being dishonest with themselves, and abandoning rational thought in exchange for empty faith.
dudev 5 days ago
@dudev Why do you keep repeating the same? : "And anyone who claims to be a skeptic and religious." what you mean? who's being religious and skeptic at the same time?There is a difference between being skeptic and then becoming religious which is totally different.
KingDcome11 4 days ago
@KingDcome11
People like Francis Collins live a contradiction. He's skeptical as a scientists. but he doesn't apply that same skepticism to his religion. Why not? Becoming religious requires one to abandon skepticism, at least partly.
You said --"Honest skepticism can also be a path to becoming religious."
No. Shutting off skepticism is a path to religion. And many religious scientists admit they don't apply skeptical thinking to their religion. They give it a free pass.
dudev 4 days ago
@dudev Francis Collins was an atheist and became religious because of his studies. He WAS SKEPTIC, that's why he was an atheist. He became a religious person afterwards. How are you gonna compare science with religion? You don't have to be an skeptic once you are convinced that there is a God. Mate, these are 2 different things. Religion is nothing like science. Why would scientist apply skepticism to religion? they don't have to. Science is not there to prove or disprove God.
KingDcome11 4 days ago
@KingDcome11
Then you don't know Francis Collins' story very well. He said he came to his religious beliefs when he saw a frozen waterfall. It had nothing to do with studies. It had everything to do with opening himself up to faith, the opposite of studies or evidence based thinking.
If religion makes claims about the natural world --AND IT DOES ALL THE TIME--then science can comment on the validity of those claims.
dudev 4 days ago
@dudev I don't think you understand that Francis doesn't have to be skeptic anymore. Why? because he knows there is a God ( At least he truly believes it.) Why would you ask someone to be skeptic about something they were already skeptic about but no longer feel that way.? Collins doesn't have to be skeptic about something he knows is true. You are only skeptic about things you are not sure about. He did apply this to his life as he's en ex atheist. But once he found evidence he renounced to it.
KingDcome11 4 days ago
@KingDcome11
"Collins doesn't have to be skeptic about something he knows is true."
A truly circular comment. Faith is the opposite of knowledge. You're using the words "belief" and "knowledge" interchangeably, and dancing between the two at your convenience. Collins doesn't KNOW. He believes.
"You are only skeptic about things you are not sure about. "
That's an ignorant comment. True skepticism is never turned off. Only a religious fool thinks he attains absolute truth.
dudev 4 days ago
@dudev hahahah Collins became religious because he watched a waterfall? hahah. It seems to me you don't know his story. He became believer in God DURING a hike but not b.c of a waterfall. He studied the evidence for and against God in cosmology for a while before reaching a conclusion. The fact he finally decided there was enough evidence and decided to believe while hiking doesn't mean that was his reason. It's really stupid that anyone would take Collin's seriously if that was the case.
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@KingDcome11
"he finally decided there was enough evidence"
HE FINALLY DECIDED -- That's not evidence; that's personal belief and personal experience, which is not evidence of anything. It's not a reason for anyone else to believe.
dudev 3 days ago
@dudev Another evidence that backs up my story is the fact that he has written numerous books on his research that have nothing to do with a waterfalls ahaha. So, what claims does religion exactly make that contradict science? There is some good cosmological arguemnts for the existence of God. God can not be reached through science because science only DEALS with the natural world. If there are some good arguments for the existence of God then you can know for sure whether God must be real or
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@KingDcome11
"There is some good cosmological arguemnts for the existence of God"
Generic cosmological arguments for A GOD, not a specific god. Why not a million gods? Or super gods ruling above the normal gods? But nothing concrete or specific.
dudev 3 days ago
@dudev Not. I guess SOME people WILL find God through their research and philosophy. Some things are better explained philosophical. We will never know everything for sure. But there is good arguments to believe there is a God and we are not here merely by chance. I guess Antony Flew , one leading atheist is also dishonest? After abandon atheism.? Not only that, but one of the books that convinced Flew of the existence of God was also recommended by some bright honest atheists like
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@KingDcome11
Another argument from authority. Flew's conversion is a personal experience, and not a reason for anyone else to believe.
dudev 3 days ago
@dudev 1) When have I argued for a specific God? 2) I never claimed Science could prove God because Science only deals with natural world. 3) Why does it matter if Cosmological arguments are for a God and not a specific God? does it make a difference when all you are trying to argue for is the existence of a God? 4) Personal experience is ONE MAJOR part for belief in God. So? You not experiencing something doesn't make it false. 5) I wanted to throw Flew's name out there because , you accuse
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@dudev Collins of being dishonest (Even though you have provided no evidence or support for such claim) and I wanted to know if You think Flew is dishonest too? I'm not saying is a rule for people to become believers of God but it just goes to show that studying cosmological arguments for the existence of God CAN change people's minds. Your whole argument consists of accusing of dishonesty to anyone who was an atheist and now believes in some type of God but have no evidence to back that up
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@dudev The fact that many skeptics have come to believe in some type of god proves that it is possible to change your mind and believe in a God. Just cause you have not experienced it doesn't mean others haven't. Again, this is not rule for belief in god, to say that just because others have changed their mind then that is proof of God's existence- I'm not saying that. But what I'm proving is that IT IS possible to believe.
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@KingDcome11
"proves that it is possible to change your mind and believe in a God"
And many religious people have become atheists.
dudev 3 days ago
@dudev So? My whole point has always been that Religious people can become atheists and atheists can become religious. This happens everyday all around the world. YOU ARE THE ONE claiming that it's impossible for skeptics to come to believe in god. The truth is , it is not impossible. The truth is atheists change their minds too and it's not because they are just lying to themselves or being dishonest. Why would they wanna believe in god? unless they have found convincing arguments?
KingDcome11 2 days ago
@KingDcome11
"YOU ARE THE ONE claiming that it's impossible for skeptics to come to believe in god"
I said it's only possible if they turn off their skepticism as far as their religion is concerned. A scientist like Collins wouldn't be religious if he applied the same skepticism he uses in his work to his religion. Religion can't survive scientific scrutiny. That's why many people believe in god solely based on faith and nothing more.
dudev 2 days ago
Comment removed
KingDcome11 2 days ago
Comment removed
KingDcome11 2 days ago
@dudev haha I really don't know how to make you understand that religion has nothing to do with science. You don't have to be skeptic about science observations in the same way you are about religion. WHY? Well, that's simple. Science is all about the natural and god or religions beliefs are outside this natural world and therefore can not be tested in the way science can test their findings. You can easily be a believer in god and be a scientist at the same tame. Matter fact, Almost 50 %
KingDcome11 2 days ago
@KingDcome11
Don't worry, Einstein, I've never made the mistake of confusing religion with science. I just want to know why you think religion is exempt from scientific scrutiny when it makes claims about the natural world. Surely it's hypocritical for you to say religion has nothing to do with science, and then you try to use science to support religion, as you did in your previous comments about cosmology. You can't have it both ways.
dudev 2 days ago
@dudev " I just want to know why you think religion is exempt from scientific scrutiny when it makes claims about the natural world." It's not as long as those claims don't contradict what is known to be facts according to scientific findings. Science doesn't look to discover God, it just looks to study the world around us. Some scientist have found that their discoveries have actually help them reinforce their belief in a god. You don't have to be a dishonest scientist just cause you
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@dudev believe in god. So long as they do not interfere with eachother. Those religions make claims about the natural world? sure it does, it says that the universe had a beginning for example. Didn't the universe had a beginning? ok then , THIS FACT helps them reinforce their beliefs in a god. Don't ever forget that the proponent of the big bang theory was Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest. He was the first person to propose the big bang theory of the origin of the universe.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@dudev So , as long as science and your religion do not interfere than you can have both. But you can't prove. But Science never seeks to prove or disprove gods. There are findings that will either help people believe even more or help others disbelieve. The supernatural can't be proved that's why science doesn't seek to explain it but just cause YOU have not experienced something supernatural doesn't make it untrue.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@dudev of leading scientists in America have or claim religious beliefs. Don't confuse science with religion, 2 different things mate. You can easily be a believer in god as long as your beliefs don't interfere with what are known facts about science and the world today. You should really stop watching dawkins or Hitchens because IT IS FALSE, A LIE that in order to be a scientist you have to be an atheist. THE FACTS prove otherwise.
KingDcome11 2 days ago
@KingDcome11
The supernatural is unprovable, so you can't say anything about it. By definition it's beyond analysis. So you're basically admitting that religious belief is not achieved by study. It can't be if the subject is untestable. And there's no good reason to exempt religion from scientific scrutiny; it makes claims about the natural world all the time. Hence, religious scientists have to rationalize their unscientific beliefs. Try reading Dawkins and Hitchens.
dudev 2 days ago
@dudev "So you're basically admitting that religious belief is not achieved by study" They are if you are an atheist who's open to study the material like Flew, Collins and many others. There are others who just "believe" which I think is ridiculous since One must learn to question even his own beliefs, I have others have. So there are others who Believe already but through their study their beliefs are even more reinforced.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@dudev I think you are reading too much Dawkins and hitchens lol. Great comedians but not so great writers. Philosophically speaking ( Yes' philosophy can be used to argue for or against God, so not only science is used in arguments for or against God), Dawkins is a joke . Go read reviews on Dawkins book the "God Delusion," Even own Atheists feel ashamed of the book. Hitchens? His best arguments against God are against people who believe in God and not god himself. he's a comedian.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@KingDcome11
I doesn't sound like you've read either of them. They've thoroughly addressed the fallacies you keep mentioning. And Dawkins and Hitchens don't have the burden to disprove god. No atheist has that burden. The burden of proof is on the believer. So the question is --What's your best argument for god. If you've presented your best one here, then you've already failed. Pleas to cosmology for a generic god and arguments from authority are not evidence.
dudev 1 day ago
@dudev What fallacies do I keep mentioning again? "And Dawkins and Hitchens don't have the burden to disprove god" that never stopped Dawkins from writing "The God delusion" which is pretty much an attack on religion and religious people but not on god himself. " If you've presented your best one here, then you've already failed" So Far I have no presented arguments at all. Let's go by parts. So far I have presented arguments that Scientists CAN Be religious and I have made my case.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@KingDcome11
I didn't say it was impossible or particularly unethical. I said it requires one to compartmentalize one's brain --to turn off one's skeptical thinking. And you've admitted as much when you said science can't analyze god. Well, if someone believes strongly in something that can't be studied, then that's the opposite of being skeptical or scientific. That makes it hypocritical.
And I doubt you've read "The God Delusion" so don't embarrass yourself by commenting on it.
dudev 1 day ago
@dudev You called Collins dishonest because he believed in god and was a scientist. I proved to you that it is possible to be a scientist and not be a hypocrite about it. (like people really become believers in a god b.c they don't believe? haha). One doesn't use skepticism in science in the way they do in religion because they are 2 different things. Science can help reinforce your belief in god but it can't prove or disprove any gods.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@KingDcome11
Collins is dishonest with himself. You have to be able to provide a legitimate argument as to why religion should be exempt from scientific scrutiny---and you haven't done so. Religion makes claims about the natural world. So why shouldn't Collins focus his skeptical mind on those claims, instead of just having faith in an untestable supernatural force, which he calls god? It's inconsistent to give religion a special pass.
dudev 23 hours ago
@dudev "why religion should be exempt from scientific scrutiny" I already told you, Religion is not. Science doesn't look to study god or gods or the supernatural. Science only deals with what's observable. You can actually help your faith be reinforced by looking at science discoveries. I never said that science discoveries and facts can't be used against or in favor of religion but even then it's not enough to prove or disprove god.
KingDcome11 14 hours ago
@dudev There are many other ways to argue for God, you can add science to the arguments, they would still fall in favor of religion if you choose to use them. But you can use philosophy (metaphysics) as good arguments. There will never be 100 % proof of God's existence but there is good arguments that point to a God. And then , personal experience does come into action to. But don't confuse religion or god as something natural. If there is a god he must not be natural
KingDcome11 14 hours ago
@dudev therefore he can't be studied in the way science studies NATURAL things. 2 Different things man. The fact that almost 50 % of all leading scientists have some type of faith shows that being an atheist is not a requirement to be a good scientist. "atheists and philosophers did criticize Dawkins' basic approach to philosophy" Wasn't that what I said? Didn't I said his philosophy was really poor? so why are you complaining? lol Dawkins has a personal opinion but I'm sorry to tell you
KingDcome11 14 hours ago
@dudev that not all scientists agree with dawkins. Almost 50% of leading scientist in america believe that belief in god is reasonable and there are good arguments for it. Actually the burden of rpoof lies on both sides. If an atheists comes to me and says "There is no God" then he must account for his words and prove that there is no god. In God delusion Dawkins tries to "prove" that believing in god is a delusion ( he must prove it) but did he? I thought it was laughable how he
KingDcome11 14 hours ago
@dudev the god delusion = joke. I have read it . it's a joke haha.It makes you laugh.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@KingDcome11
I don't believe you for a second. You wouldn't be making such silly comments if you had read it. Many atheists and philosophers did criticize Dawkins' basic approach to philosophy, but they approved of his overall message, that religion has nothing to support it, but faith and vapid arguments. And It doesn't matter if Dawkins fails or not because as I keep pointing out THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON ATHEISTS. The burden is on believers, and they fail every time.
dudev 23 hours ago
@dudev spent most of his time attacking religion but not god really. It seems like you don't understand that it is reasonable to believe in a god. Why do you think there is so many debates? Many debates won by theists ( Like John lenox destroying Richard dawkins) and many others are won by atheists. And many other debates never happen (Like dawkins refusing to debate William Craig..afraid much?). If it was so easy to prove or disprove a god , so long ago everything would have been settled.
KingDcome11 14 hours ago
Comment removed
KingDcome11 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dudev By Now I hope you FINALLY understand that YES it's possible and ethical to be a scientist and believer. NO, you are not a dishonest person just because you love science and believe in god. Do we agree? You have presented no arguemnts or evidence that would say otherwise besides the "you ca't be a scientist and believe in god because In say so". I await your response.
KingDcome11 1 day ago
@dudev 2 Nobel Prize Winners (Charles Townes, inventor of the laser; and Arno Penzias, who co-discovered Cosmic Microwave Bacground Radiation), and also physicist (and non-believer) Robert Jastrow. THERE ARE good arguments for the existence of God. If you have already made up your mind, nothing will convince you or change your mind. True skepticism is never turned off? it depends on what you want to be skeptic about. You can't be skeptic about why the grass is green because we know why is green.
KingDcome11 3 days ago
@KingDcome11
There is no scientific evidence for a god, so a making arguments from authority (a logical fallacy) is not going to help your case. And you're not arguing for a generic god, you're arguing for a very specific god, the god of the bible. You can't make generic arguments for a god and expect them to support your specific god. That's just deceitful.
dudev 3 days ago
@dudev It is Collin's studies that led him to God. There are 2 types of smart christians: those who's study will lead them closer to God and those who's study will lead them away from God. There are 2 types of truth seeking atheists ; those who's study will reaffirm their skepticism and those who's study and investigation will make them question their lack of belief. This happens everyday from both sides and even from other religions and beliefs. rational people on both sides.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
@MultiNaturalist I don't know. We all wish we could do without them. what's the purpose of a cat? I don't know but all I know is that cats are doing good to human existence as they are the most acquired animal as pet in the world.It seems like everything there is is due to the fact that the world we live in has the necessary properties for the existence of all there is. I wish out teeth would not get cavities, i wish we wouldn't need water to survive but it's just all part of who we are.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist Imagine that this is all by chance.... Why do we need a heart? why do we even need a brain? why do have 2 legs instead of 3? or 2 eyes instead of 1 or 4? why do we have 2 ears instead of 6? why do we have 1 nose instead of 2? why is that that by chance we function by going to the bathroom instead of not going . B chance we need to sleep instead of not sleeping , why do we get tired instead of not? We are all perfect for this world just the way we are and whether we are here
KingDcome11 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KingDcome11 "why do have 2 legs instead of 3? or 2 eyes instead of 1 or 4? why do we have 2 ears instead of 6?" -- The simple answer: we have 2 legs because we inherited our 2 legs from primates, our forebears in evolution. The same is true of the other body parts you mentioned. We inherited them from our forebears. Had our forebears possessed 3 legs, we would have 3 legs. Simple. And where there is divergence from our forebears, fossils would indicate the transition. They do this quite well.
MultiNaturalist 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist by chance or by the finger of a supreme being it seems either chance created us this way and we are made or evolved according to what surround us ( to breath we need lungs or do we breath because we have lungs?) . I guess we'll never know.
KingDcome11 1 month ago
@MultiNaturalist and we could say the same about God for those of us who believe in one. Why do we have 2 legs instead of three god? and we could go on. But we will still be left with no answer.
KingDcome11 1 month ago