@quakerman7 I'm currently in a philosophy of religion class, taught by a Notre Dame PhD who knows all the big theologians, and I have yet to be slightly dissuaded. Plantinga himself makes no argument that could change an "atheist's" mind. I can tell you without doubt, that theology is reserved for theists; it is not for converting non-believers. My professor pointed, out in the first class, that if one doesn't believe in god the discourse will be empty.
The audacity of us human beings to even try to discern the existence of a GOD is extremely arrogant, since we do not have the mental intellect or capacity to do so in the first place.....so keep contemplating nonsensical conjectural debate with more and more non-provable rhetoric!
Listen to any of Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox or Michael Ramsden. If you spend all your time on these sites, you will be unconditionally reinforcing only 1/2 the debate.
ATTENTION ATHEISTS....RELIGION AND THE BELIEF IN GOD ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Religion is Theism and the belief in God is Deism. You should only have the existence of God debate with Deists. You can shit on the Bible all you want, but the fact that you don't believe it doesn't make you an Atheist. Disproving god is much harder then disproving Christianity, BUT NOTICE HOW SAM HARRIS FALLACIOUSLY USES THE RETARDATION OF RELIGION AS VINDICATION OF ATHEISM. Stop red herring.
Religion is the practice of a specific set of beliefs, including belief in a particular God. Deism is belief in a god or gods without the supernatural and who does not intervene in our lives. The difference is what kind of god you believe in, and atheism is the appropriate term for lack of both forms of belief.
Attempting to disprove something for which there is no evidence or reason to believe in the first place is unnecessary.
@AntitheistPOV The problem with your argument is Deism is the belief that the beginning of the Universe was catalyzed somehow, NOTHING more. This isn't a debate that has anything to do with evidence, obviously there is no evidence of God. Rather, Deism is an innocent idea to explain Universal origins. What is YOUR explanation of existence? There is no evidence or logical sense for what you would tell me either. God is just an idea, and you have to tell me why it is wrong.
@xTSxALLDAY Deism is belief in a creator deity that doesn't intervene with the universe. It is not just saying that the universe was catalyzed "somehow" by "something"
@TheKillerotter omg w.e. the point is that since we do not try to define God, Deism is fundamentally an idea of existence. Explaining existence has no logical answer or evidence from both Deist and Atheist perspectives.
Your statement speaks for itself. Deism, like theism, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. I agree, so I don't believe either.
I don't have an explanation, because there isn't enough evidence available to support a conclusion and I don't find it necessary to make things up to fill the gap.
@AntitheistPOV This phrase 'belief in something for which there is no evidence.' If true, then Christianity (or theism in general) is a sham. However, what if the phrase is just a creation of one side of the debate? Should theists necessarily agree with their opponents definition of terms? If they do, they have already lost. The sad part is, atheists know that 'no evidence' phrase is a controlling scam. I believe based on evidence - as all Christians do. I can show you.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
And no, you do not have proof. You may have correlation and circumstantial evidence that can be rationally explained by non-supernatural means. If any Christian (or theist of any kind) had any proof of any kind, ever, I'm quite sure we would have heard about it a long time ago.
@AntitheistPOV Your definition of the noun faith is tailor-made to support all the conclusions you want. This definition guarantees all Christians are idiots, but why should we even grant this definition, one used by atheists to artificially stack the deck? This is not the biblical def of 'faith'. Peter saw the Transfiguration, yet he spent the rest of his life saying that Fulfilled Prophecy was an even more sure proof that his own eyewitness testimony. Study prophecy, then get back to me.
The definition I pasted was directly copied from the on-line dictionary. It's not "my" definition. That is what the word means. If you mean something else, then perhaps you're using the wrong word.
The flaw in your statement is that you assume
a) the prophecy is true
b) the prophecy was written when you assume it was
c) the events described in the "fulfillment" of said prophecy actually happened.
Not to mention the minor detail of whether Jesus actually existed.
@AntitheistPOV omg, i thought I was having a rational conversation with someone. You are not one of those few who still think 'he didn't exist'. Look go to w3 dot 4 truth dot net. There are scores of videos and articles for you to read. Get a basic education on historicity issues first, then come back to the debate. Otherwise, its a time waster for everybody and it makes you look silly. As for 'dictionary' def ... these also have editors. Get my point?
There is no proof Jesus ever existed. There are arguments that he may have, with some evidence, but certainly nothing conclusive. You also don't know who wrote most of the BIble or when it was written. You also have no way of validating the vast majority of what's in the Bible, especially with regards to its supernatural claims.
Is this the extent of your "evidence"? Very weak.
@AntitheistPOV Please. There are several extra-biblical sources for the existence of Jesus: Tacitus, Tranquillus, Josephus and the Talmud. The last book of the Bible was written no later than 95 AD by a very old John. As for supernatural claims, do a study of OT prophecy. Quit saying Jesus never existed: you are only making a fool of yourself historically. I think the last time anybody seriously took your position was in the 1960s.
I didn't say Jesus never existed. I said there's no conclusive evidence that he did exist. Further, even if there were a person called Jesus, there's no evidence that he was the son of a God or that any of the supernatural claims in the BIble are true.
You can name call as much as you like, it's not getting you any closer to the proof you claimed you had when this began. Please either demonstrate your proof or admit you lied.
@AntitheistPOV Atheists know that historical evidence is our proof. If they say, History is not Science', and fold their hands thinking that they've won - it is just silly. Do you define 'conclusive' as some sort of video-tape? How many sources do you even need? It is a set-up. Did you google 'extra-biblical sources for jesus of nazareth'? Why don't you watch WLC and Peter Millican, 2011 at Birmingham - a heart-pounding debate if ever there was one.
Historical record is a form of evidence, not proof. However, such evidence is only relevant when it's accepted as fact.
"Go and look it up" is not providing evidence. If you have something relevant to say that proves your claim is true, then provide it. Otherwise, admit you lied. Please stop dancing around the issue and back up your claim.
@AntitheistPOV You're a funny guy, accusing me of dancing. All history is 'unrepeatable', and therefore has to be accepted or not. Look at holocaust-deniers. Look at 911 conspiracies. If you deny validity of history, you live on in the now and only in whatever your directly perceive. This is the trap of Enlightenment thinking, which was silly then and eroding yearly now. So, I will grant you the next request: 'What would constitute in your frame of ref, 'proof'. I cannot guess myself.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't "deny the validity of history". I stated a fact. There are many historians that aren't convinced that Jesus existed.
However, whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant. Even if I grant that he may have existed, it still doesn't go towards proving there's a God. Now you're asking me to define proof for you?
@AntitheistPOV Now we are getting down to it yes? Let us grant that that last 2000 years makes no sense if Jesus was a fiction. Grant that he existed. The debate really is not that but 'Who was he actually?' I cannot do this in 500 chrs, but you can watch WLC, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Michael Ramsden. God cannot make you love Him; so He must be subtle, quiet, gentle. Would you not go insane if an omnipotent God showed up when you were not ready? So he woos you like a lover & friend.
Why do the last 2000 years make no sense if Jesus was a fiction?
Whether or not gods exist has nothing to do with whether I love them. Even if the Christian God did offer sufficient evidence to accept it as real, I would still find him cruel and immoral and see no reason to love it.
Either way, your argument is appealing to reason (bad reason, but still reason). Reason is not proof.
@AntitheistPOV You are getting closer, I think, when you say, 'even if..sufficient evidence...I would still find him cruel and immoral.' Now, given your feelings toward God, what if He burst upon your reality without attenuation? Would you not rage against Him in every case? I would like you to read either 'The Holiness of God' by RC Sproul, a theologian's essay, or 'The Shack' by William P Young, a theologian's fictional work. I recommend 'The Shack'. It challenges, even for christians.
@AntitheistPOV I have asked you many many questions to which you have given no response. You know that there are literally hundreds of hours of apologetic debate to be easily found, but do you watch them? Did you read any of the books I recommend? Did you even answer my question, 'What would constitute proof for you?' When you only repeat your statement 'gimme proof!' over and over again, future readers of these postings will clearly see which of us is 'not bothering to respond.'
@AntitheistPOV 1) Over 300 OT prophecies describing the life, nature and mission of the Jewish Messiah, 2) Jesus being in fulfillment of them, 3) historical eye-witness testimony 4) OT prophesies non-Messianic also being fulfilled as they go.
So: I can provide Proof of Jesus, Jesus was God, therefore I have provided Proof of God. (Hard trying to condense 100 hrs of debates into 500 characters). Watch them yourself why don't you? Watch WLC vs Peter Millican at Birmingham, or any Michael Ramsden
So, it comes down to the Bible. A book written by unknown authors, most likely people who were Christians and had a vested interest in confirming his "miracles", years after his death.
This is what you call proof? In a court, or any scientific enquiry, you would be laughed out the door.
@AntitheistPOV Talk about circular reasoning! The creators of a theology to define Christianity was created by Christians? As for 'vested interest', the only pay-off believers got for 300 years was persecution, poverty & pogroms.If the early disciples knew it to be a lie, they would have abandon their believe at the first blush of trouble. Clearly you have not watched WL Craig, Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, John Lennox or anybody else in debates. Please learn bible historicity.
Apologetics is simply another word for "reasoning". Anyone can reason their way to anything. Reason is not evidence or proof, it's simply an argument.
I can only conclude that either your idea of what constitutes proof is severely lacking or you're being deliberately dishonest. If you had any proof, you would have offered it from the start.
In future, please don't misrepresent the truth by claiming to be able to show people proof.
@AntitheistPOV It looks like we just have some crossed-wires on semantics. I hope people reading this chain will see that I never was trying to be dishonest. Do you think people would even want some kind of scientific proof? They would rage against the results in any case. To readers of this chain: I hope you will be able to see from the tenor of the conversation, the inner heart of each person - judge for yourself who you'd wanna hang with. Conversation done.
@quakerman7 uh yes we want proof...proof is testable...proof is knowledge...science is the advancement in the knowledge of the species....whens the last time the bible or church has tried to advance anything...they dont...they wont...the more you know the more likely you will see through there veil of lies and deceit..just keep paying them there money...they will keep you there as long as possible... if every one stop giving religion there hard earned money..it would colapse.. and they know this
@BIGSTRO64 Science is only one discipline among many. Each discipline has its own tool-set. As for money: I agreed. That is why I only go to churches who do 3 things: 1) do not take donations from non-members, 2) isolates the finances between the business leadership and the spiritual leadership, and 3) make an accurate monthly account of their finances. Distrust every other organization that does not follow this model, I say.
@quakerman7 WLC is delusional and his views only matter in his head and the poor people he cons into his nonsense..oh dont start with that book of fables parables and myths...to learn biblical anything is to poison you mind with superstitious nonsense...... written by savage bigots in backwards palistine...the knowledge we have gathered as a species dwarfs anything they thought they new 2200 years ago.....with what we know today how can you refer anyone to the bible....
@BIGSTRO64 Fine. You don't like WLC? Fine. Try some more debates. Try John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden. Mix it up why don't ya? Do some debates. Do some lectures. Watching such is not for cowards you know. You never know when one side will lay something out that you cannot defeat. On a personal note: 'savage bigots'? Cmon, let's see if you can get a better grasp of history, will ya? The NT defeats, racism, sexism, classism, slavery. Can you quote the passages that do this?
@quakerman7 leviticus and nubers has alot to say about racism sexism and slavery......how to buy treat and beat slaves....ref to women as property and no better than slaves..who to sleep with..... classism ..how you can take slaves...as long as there not your brethren...but people from lesser tribes around you....i can keep quoting out of these two section alone but i dont have the characters to do so....
@BIGSTRO64 oh but you dont think the old testament have any reference to the new testament....so the book it was add to has no relativity.....only when the genital yesuah meek and mild... all the thing in the old book can be just thrown out by mere men... you cant have it both ways......so your atheist to some parts of the book but not the whole idea.....so the new testamnet is better than old and we should just live by it.....the the god of this book is not all powerful or all knowing..
@BIGSTRO64 The Bible starts off with Abraham selling-out his wife Sarai in order to save his neck when he went down to Egypt. It pretty much just keeps getting worse from there re: women. We have a whole book of fallen people, getting more and more confused about who God is and how to live. Prophets spent a good chunk of their time saying that a Messiah would show up and that he would bear divine characteristics. He finally did, 2000 yrs ago. Read the story right man.
@quakerman7 and the most damaging quote out of the NT is by jesus himself.....think not of tomorrow just follow me.......screw your kids family friends society ...just follow me...especial when i bring on the destruction of this world.......great....thanks all powerful all knowing...you new when you made us that this would happen....but you couldnt change anything....the whole book should be scrapped new and old....its not a moral guide or cares about the people that worship it just its on image
@BIGSTRO64 This site probably has the most intense hatred of xtny of all the places I've been. A part of me says, 'screw it, find ppl who are open, seekers'. Another part of me says, 'Reach out to those who are drowning no matter what.' 64, you have everything backwards. The whole Bible is love, joy, grace, mercy, forgiveness, compassion and the self-sacrifice of a God who wishes for nothing less than the healing of all relationships. But, to get this, you have to read the whole thing. Coward?
@quakerman7 'historical eye-witness testimony'. Evidence for this claim? None. The gospels were written by four anonymous authors in a part of the middle east where 90% of the population were illiterate and prone to superstition. Furthermore, these accounts are completely interdependent, were written from at least 35 years after the death of Jesus and are strewn with contradictions. This is enough to justify the extraordinary claims?
@FryderykFChopin Eyewitness from about 1500 people might just about do it. But then 1500 people saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty vanish. But nobody thinks it really did.
@quakerman7 Do you accept modern claims of alien encounters? Do you accept modern miracle claims made by the followers of Sathya Sai Baba? There are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people, who will tell you they have personally witnessed the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. We're not talking about a handful of ancient third hand accounts written decades after an event, but thousands of people alive RIGHT NOW who can and will tell you what they saw.
@quakerman7 Yet, I am beyond willing to bet that you do not accept the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba despite all of this "evidence" which is of exactly the same type as that which you claim. I have no problem accepting that a dude named Jesus may have existed in the region and time which the Bible claims. The problem is that no amount of claims to witnesses will ever demonstrate that he performed miracles for the same reason that it doesn't prove anything about Sathya Sai Baba.
@quakerman7 Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when the witness is well educated and knowledgeable in the specific field which they are discussing. Now, when we throw in the fact that ancient witnesses were necessarily far less educated on average than the modern human, their accounts become even less reliable. As far as prophecy is concerned; do you really not grasp that when someone writes a book about someone who died decades earlier, in a time when records were very poor,
@quakerman7 .. can make up details which will make Jesus' actions correspond with the prophecies of the OT. Apparently the Jewish people aren't as satisfied with Jesus' prophecy fulfilling capabilities, as they don't even think that these prophecies were fulfilled. You're on very shaky ground using the bible to prove itself. Saying, "Jesus must have been real, he does stuff in the NT which fulfills OT prophecy!" is utterly laughable circular reasoning.
@mindsmirror Circular reasoning would be if Jesus fulfilled in the NT, prophecies created in the NT. Fulfilling OT prophecies is linear man. As for what the Jewish people are/not satisfied, just remember, all the original Christians were Jews, including that Pharisee of Pharisees, Saul of Tarsus.
@quakerman7 This crap about making yourself a fool "historically" is laughable. You cannot demonstrate that Jesus actually existed. I have no problem accepting it, simply because it is inconsequential, but you don't have solid evidence. You have shaky evidence at best. Just like with Socrates, scholars do not actually know for sure that the Jesus described in the Bible ever existed at all. One other thing is certain; even if he did exist, there is no evidence for ANY of the supernatural claims.
@mindsmirror Did you even google 'Extra--Biblical Sources for Jesus of Nazareth'? OMG, you are literally decades behind current scholarship on this. The 'Jesus never existed' comment is the hallmark of the least-educated skeptic. I no longer take you seriously, since the gap to Socrates is 1400 years, and Jesus' docs is 70, and you don't even know this. Bye bye
By the way, the whole system of vicarious redemption, according to the Bible, is based on belief without proof. If you KNEW that it was true, through proofs, the requirement of faith in Christ would be completely irrelevant.
It seems quite obvious to me that not only do you not have proof, but that your religion requires you not to have proof.
@AntitheistPOV Your first statement is biblically false, in fact there is not even a word in hebrew for the faith that you are describing here. Your second statement makes no sense, as it is based on a false dichotomy set up in the first. Your third statement therefore is also nonsensical - and makes 2 errors in one. I do have proof, and Christianity in no way requires the 'not-having-proof' you are assuming. I've never seen a posting so wrong, so deeply, so fast.
@AntitheistPOV Saying, 'I don't agree' doesn't counter my statement that your definition of 'faith' is deeply flawed - in fact, specifically designed to be that way so as to cast all believers as idiots. Why don't you watch some Michael Ramsden or John Lennox. About 3-4 hours total should do it, just so you get a broad scope. Oh wait... everyone here only watches Sam Harris & Co. Its better you know...make sure not to expose yourself to any contrary opinions. Proof = Prophecies Fulfilled.
@xTSxALLDAY Okay, and all that means is that God may or may not be real, but can still be assumed to be nonexistent until evidence supports its existence. Meanwhile, religion, the systematic display of belief in God (at least in most cases) still perpetuates violence, hate, bigotry and fear with the feeble excuse of attempting to please God. Red herring my ass. Either God is real, and a dick, or nonexistent.
@beatonm198 'Religion, the systematic display of belief in God' perpetuates a,b,c,d with feeble excuse...' Historically, you have church history to back you up. However, what does that have to do with Jesus or God? As a Quaker, do you think I fall underneath the condemnation of your phrasing? Remember: it took 1200 years to screw Christianity up, and we Reformers have only been working on fixing it for 600. Give us another 600, please? Or maybe, I have it fixed now. Talk to me.
@quakerman7 Christianity was screwed up since the beginning. If you cannot back up your beliefs with rational justification, as opposed to your feelings or faithbased claims, then they are worthless. There is no justification for religious practice. Belief in God is separate from that, and deists have a much more legitimate belief than those who subscribe to a religion. As a Quaker, you assert to knowing God's desires for you to reach heaven. That claim needs proving. Prove it or go.
@beatonm198 1) defend your statement 'screwed up from the beginning'. 2) Agreed: faith must be grounded in evidence and reason. Listen to a few hours of John Lennox or Michael Ramsden. 3) It depends on what you mean by 'religious practice'. 4) Defend your legitimacy after watching several debates (also Ravi Zacharias). 5) Proof: I am working on a word doc to detail 60 (of 300+) OT prophecies re the Messiah. Peter saw the Transfiguration, but he valued Fulfilled Prophecy higher than even that.
Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited 5 human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If there's no truth in logic & reason merely because we are only biochemical puppets simply reacting to an external environment how can science be trusted as a truth seeking method? Cont>
@WILLTHEWGMAN Science is not my god, my giant, my witch or my fairy queen, it is just the correct method of reasoning if you want to arrive at honest, truthful conclusions. It is not infallible but it will honestly attempt to arrive at a rational conclusion using the evidence at hand rather than pronouncing dogma and persecuting heretics. What other option would you suggest? Believe magic stories? Which magic story? How do you know which magic story is the right one? Does it matter?
You realise that science gives credence to the 5 senses alone as being the only real tools of human truth thus dismissing your self-awareness as an individual with freewill as mere illusion. Science, by it's very limited methodology of what it considers real and not real dismisses the very self-evident truth and notion that you are you with choice and control over your biochemical system. Science states you are merely a biochemical robot and you call this a "rational conclusion"...?
The methodology of science is an anti-evolutionary process presumption. If you give credence that the 5 human senses evolved 1st one, then 2 then 3... & that evolution is continuing you would not have to dismiss the self-evident truth about your self-awareness as an individual with free-will. That truth may be the very 6th sense that is still evolving & not mere biochemical illusion. How does science know we are not blind in some form or another to our external world as a specie?
Not in modern science sadly. What other human sense other than the five does modern science accept as more than biochemical illusory? What other human sense other than the five does science use in it's methodology to derive experienced or observable truths, none...
Thermoception and nociception are dependent and part of the touch sense process. Equilibrioception is dependent and part of the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) working in conjunction with the skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. None of your listed samples are extra sensory perceptions outside (not dependent) on one or more of the basic 5 human senses. All are part and parcel of the basic 5 human senses.
@WILLTHEWGMAN You're forgetting that alot of science is predicated on evidence that is not observed by the 5 senses. We now how instruments and tools that extend our senses. Electro-magnetic radiation can not be detected by our 5 senses except for a very small sliver that we call visable light, but we have good evidence that those non-visable radiations exist because we have a rational model of physics that predicts how we should be able to detect them. Science isn't just our 5 senses.
Instruments and tools that extend our senses only extend one of the 5 we have, they are not a gain of a new sixth human sense. Electro-magnetic radiation is light and light is perceived by vision. Our senses are used for both whether seeing with our eyes alone or with tools. So, yes, science is only what we experience within our 5 senses, assisted or not. Even to make predictions one of our 5 senses is needed. This is why values, morals and aesthetics can never be judged by science.
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think your point about scientific tools is perfectly valid but I would rather say these tools allow us to more accurately measure the world we experience. We cannot, however, escape the fact that it is "simply" an experience. Like Descartes pointed out; all we can know is that we are.
I can't agree with your second point however. Have you read Sam Harris' "The moral landscape"? I think it accurately describes how science can allow us to make objective claims about morals.
I read it. Sam incoherently claims that morals can be objective but at the same times claims free-will of choice to be an illusion and that humans have no true free-will. He claims that "human flourishing" can be this moral objectiveness but human flourishing is just as subjective as any other human proposition. Which humans flourishing, the rapist or the victim, the aborted baby or the mother? Should quality of life outweigh longevity of life? Is freedom more important than safety?...
@WILLTHEWGMAN I have a hard time understanding why you think there can be no objective morals if the concept of free will is an illusion. Could you explain that?
Also, I can't see how the fact that well-being is subjective stops us from making objective observations about it. Hunger is subjective. So is pain. These are experiences caused by physical processes. Most people would agree that we can talk about them objectively.
What would the value of any moral or immoral action be if there was no free-will in choice leading to that moral decision? How could one even be culpable for their actions if all their actions were merely biochemically and external environmentally made without any real individually chosen choice of action via free-will? The justice system would become meaningless if humans have no real free-will. How can Sam's process objectively answer the question, is abortion moral or immoral?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Ok, let's say we have an axiom that says we wish to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. Any action that takes us closer to that state is defined as "bad", and the opposite is defined as "good". Now imagine we have a few very simple but conscious creatures capable of experiencing pain or pleasure who sometimes randomly inflict one of these feelings on eachother. The act of inflicting pain would per definiton be bad (immoral) while inflicting pleasure would be good (moral).
@WILLTHEWGMAN (cont.) This shows that actions can be bad/good independent of will. Now regarding culpability; can any creature in the example be considered inherently evil/good? No, but let's say the actions aren't completely random but effected by external stimuli. If a creature is less likely to commit a bad action if it is assigned blame for every bad action it commits, it would be bad for the others not to assign blame. Likewise, it is good to feel bad after a bad action.
@WILLTHEWGMAN Your final question is very interesting. This reasoning shows there are objectively good/bad actions, but it never says it is easy to know which is which. It just says what matters in the example of abortion is what effect it has on conscious creatures. Every abortion has an impact both on the mother and society. It might not be possible to discern what action is better in the long run. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it scientifically. This is my reasoning :)
@WILLTHEWGMAN Um, lol. Apart from anything else, I see you know nothing about science, since you think there are only five senses. There are 15+ known senses in science including things like proprioception. It was Aristotle who described 5 senses. Science has moved on from there, thanks. Unlike religion, science doesn't stop with texts written 2000 years ago. Science is always striving to describe things more accurately. Including emotions, self awareness, self will etc.
Proprioception or Equilibrioception is dependent and part of the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) working in conjunction with the skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. None of these are independent senses like the 5 I am referring to.
BTW, Do you believe in free-will that is not mere biochemical illusion? If so, from where & what is your free-will agent derived outside of your biochemistry?
Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition and just as dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by our five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is just as self-evident as ourself itself is that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
He has a stand that's very much different from the rest. I do not agree with everything he says, but I admit he is up to something, there's more in Harris than meets the eye, I see him as a man that craves leadership and almost his own show... and there is wood for that. I like his determination to express hypothetical assertions as good solid ideas, even when he has no good clue as to how to prove them right, from a naturalistic stand point. So yes that takes guts.
@wakniss That woman is 'Julia Sweeney' a former cast member of SNL she was androgynous Pat. She is also one of the first comedians to criticize religion in her act. She is to Comedy, what Sam Harris is to Journalism in their stand against religion. If I were introducing her I'd make her look like a quietly composed church mouse as I start breathing into a bag halfway through = ) We can't all be as composed as Bill Maher [ Sam Harris: with Bill Maher ] < If you haven't seen it
this 'deep introspective feeling of content' Harris promotes is great; I've found it is achieved by simply having one strong priority which comes before everything else: ethics. Putting ethics, the promotion of wellbeing & destruction of suffering, first is the way forward. On that introspective note, psychedelic drugs can be used responsibly to find out how consciousness works. In closing, any talk of wellbeing without mentioning the endocannibinoid system is sort of lacking. Good talk though!
Travelling in the reason landscape: Going through the comments after hearing Dr. Sam is like jumping from the Everest and landing in the bottom of mariana trench!!
I'm a Catholic. But yeah Sam Harris rocks!!! So he's suits are so cool!!! But really I admire how he carries himself (Speaking and dressing up). Growing to be a big fan of this guy. hahaha
@gatch45 I'm an Atheist. But yeah Jesus Christ rocks!!! His hair is so cool!!! But really I admire how he did not exist and still carried himself thro centuries. Im indeed a big fan of that guy.
EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO SEE A VIDEO THAT SHOWS WHAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS DO TO GIRLS IN IRAQ TYPE THIS IN YOUTUBE RIGHT NOW OR VISIT MY CHANNEL! The video is called, "The video America's Army does not want you to see (Warning Graphic)". THIS WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW OF THE "WAR ON TERROR" FOREVER! PLEASE IF YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH WATCH IT.
@johnpotter26 He acknowledges that it is a matter of politics by making the point that it is only a matter of politics because it is a matter of religion first.
As always, I'm thoroughly impressed with Sam's elocution and wit. What confuses me is why he would opine on political strategy in this manner, especially given his previous criticisms of individuals straying from their domain of expertise. While I have no experience on Cap. Hill myself, it strikes me as completely obvious that major social change is impossible without some sort of group coordination and, therefore, labeling.
@Thechristiancullen The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him first married a twice widowed lady named Khadija may Allah be pleased with her. He was 25 and she was about 45 and she was the one that proposed to him. Your claim about prophets marrying young girls is a fallacy. However if the young girl CONSENTS to the marriage with the older man there is NOTHING wrong with that aslong as she truly consented.
@Thechristiancullen this is your preconceived notion of Jesus is lord that is making you accept him as a God. You can select a few verses from different places in the bible to suit your perception. However I believe those verses to indicate that the word of God and what Jesus taught are the same. Jesus peace be upon him is not God!
@Thechristiancullen Can you point out ANY verse from the bible where Jesus Christ peace be upon says unequivocably, I am god or worship me! I am willing to accept Christianity if you can point out an unambigious verse from the bible of Jesus himself saying I am god or worship me.
@Thechristiancullen Muslims love Jesus peace be upon him more than Christians do. We respect Jesus peace be upon him more than Christians do. We also follow his teachings more than you do. We are not allowed to say his named with saying peace be upon him and i haven't seen you write it once. Jesus got circumcised on the 8th day and we Muslims are all circumcised. Majority of Christians aren't even circumcised. Jesus forbade alcohol and drugs yet most Christians are indulged in that.
@Sandtrigganigga How can muslims love Jesus more when you do not KNOW HIM? Have you asked the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart?
God's law is circumcised onto the heart of every born again believer. I agree many christians drink and this is why Jesus says NOT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ME LORD WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
@Thechristiancullen You are right we all have sinned in all our life times including you and me. The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians worship the creation instead of worshiping the creator. We Muslim cannot accept your doctrine of trinity of how God can be one but three at same time (1+1+1=3). What your involved in is called paganism. God does not need to come down to earth to die for human beings sins. EVERY man and woman is responsible for their own actions.
@gjsterp Evidence for God; (1) the cosmological argument; (2) the teleological argument; (3) the ontological arguement (4) the death and resserection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is not a case of God v Science, rather science without faith is lame.
@gjsterp it was the bearded religious non pork eaters who wanted to crucify Jesus, the Romans were reluctant to do so - yet is your SIN OF INDIFFERENCE that nails the Lord Jesus Christ to the cross
@Thechristiancullen Islam teaches us that God is ONE and only. He has no partners. Neither does he have any sons or daughters. God does NOT beget NOR is he BEGOTTEN! I can't understand that WHY would God need to come down in the form of flesh to die for our sins? When you say that you are LIMITING God's limitless power.
Israel was in whoredom, polygamy is sin and led to prophets being led astray, divided families and jealousy.
God needed to come down himself because man cannot save himself through doing works based relgions. Someones blood had to pay the price. Hallelujah - What a Saviour.
@Thechristiancullen "God needed to come down himself because man cannot save himself through doing works based relgions. Someones blood had to pay the price. Hallelujah - What a Saviour."
Human sacrifice by the Mayans and Incans is looked upon with angst, yet your Jesus (human) sacrifice is looked upon as a miracle.
Sam is amazing. I always take something out of his lectures that stays in my thoughts for a while. Amazing mind.
JonesIndustries 9 hours ago
4:02 for the MAN !!
NexisFilms 1 day ago
sam harris is the hottest atheist. the rest are fucking fat pieces of shit with intellectual minds.
halflifeproductionz 1 week ago
stop the fucking whispering hurts me ears.
halflifeproductionz 1 week ago
@BER2ERKER typo: *...pointed out, in...*
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
@quakerman7 I'm currently in a philosophy of religion class, taught by a Notre Dame PhD who knows all the big theologians, and I have yet to be slightly dissuaded. Plantinga himself makes no argument that could change an "atheist's" mind. I can tell you without doubt, that theology is reserved for theists; it is not for converting non-believers. My professor pointed, out in the first class, that if one doesn't believe in god the discourse will be empty.
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
Sam Harris rules (Butthead voice).
BER2ERKER 1 week ago
Sam Harris is a baller.
MadDoggMo 2 weeks ago
4:17 to get to it
Feistycadaver 2 weeks ago 2
skip the bitchs worthless crap and go straight to Dr. Harris.
outlaw87100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The audacity of us human beings to even try to discern the existence of a GOD is extremely arrogant, since we do not have the mental intellect or capacity to do so in the first place.....so keep contemplating nonsensical conjectural debate with more and more non-provable rhetoric!
lifeschild1 1 month ago
Listen to any of Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox or Michael Ramsden. If you spend all your time on these sites, you will be unconditionally reinforcing only 1/2 the debate.
quakerman7 1 month ago
ATTENTION ATHEISTS....RELIGION AND THE BELIEF IN GOD ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Religion is Theism and the belief in God is Deism. You should only have the existence of God debate with Deists. You can shit on the Bible all you want, but the fact that you don't believe it doesn't make you an Atheist. Disproving god is much harder then disproving Christianity, BUT NOTICE HOW SAM HARRIS FALLACIOUSLY USES THE RETARDATION OF RELIGION AS VINDICATION OF ATHEISM. Stop red herring.
xTSxALLDAY 1 month ago in playlist The God, Religion and Science Debate
@xTSxALLDAY
Religion is the practice of a specific set of beliefs, including belief in a particular God. Deism is belief in a god or gods without the supernatural and who does not intervene in our lives. The difference is what kind of god you believe in, and atheism is the appropriate term for lack of both forms of belief.
Attempting to disprove something for which there is no evidence or reason to believe in the first place is unnecessary.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV The problem with your argument is Deism is the belief that the beginning of the Universe was catalyzed somehow, NOTHING more. This isn't a debate that has anything to do with evidence, obviously there is no evidence of God. Rather, Deism is an innocent idea to explain Universal origins. What is YOUR explanation of existence? There is no evidence or logical sense for what you would tell me either. God is just an idea, and you have to tell me why it is wrong.
xTSxALLDAY 1 month ago
@xTSxALLDAY Deism is belief in a creator deity that doesn't intervene with the universe. It is not just saying that the universe was catalyzed "somehow" by "something"
TheKillerotter 1 month ago
@TheKillerotter omg w.e. the point is that since we do not try to define God, Deism is fundamentally an idea of existence. Explaining existence has no logical answer or evidence from both Deist and Atheist perspectives.
xTSxALLDAY 1 month ago
@xTSxALLDAY
Your statement speaks for itself. Deism, like theism, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. I agree, so I don't believe either.
I don't have an explanation, because there isn't enough evidence available to support a conclusion and I don't find it necessary to make things up to fill the gap.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV This phrase 'belief in something for which there is no evidence.' If true, then Christianity (or theism in general) is a sham. However, what if the phrase is just a creation of one side of the debate? Should theists necessarily agree with their opponents definition of terms? If they do, they have already lost. The sad part is, atheists know that 'no evidence' phrase is a controlling scam. I believe based on evidence - as all Christians do. I can show you.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
It's not "my" definition. It is THE definition.
Faith - noun
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
And no, you do not have proof. You may have correlation and circumstantial evidence that can be rationally explained by non-supernatural means. If any Christian (or theist of any kind) had any proof of any kind, ever, I'm quite sure we would have heard about it a long time ago.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Your definition of the noun faith is tailor-made to support all the conclusions you want. This definition guarantees all Christians are idiots, but why should we even grant this definition, one used by atheists to artificially stack the deck? This is not the biblical def of 'faith'. Peter saw the Transfiguration, yet he spent the rest of his life saying that Fulfilled Prophecy was an even more sure proof that his own eyewitness testimony. Study prophecy, then get back to me.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
The definition I pasted was directly copied from the on-line dictionary. It's not "my" definition. That is what the word means. If you mean something else, then perhaps you're using the wrong word.
The flaw in your statement is that you assume
a) the prophecy is true
b) the prophecy was written when you assume it was
c) the events described in the "fulfillment" of said prophecy actually happened.
Not to mention the minor detail of whether Jesus actually existed.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV omg, i thought I was having a rational conversation with someone. You are not one of those few who still think 'he didn't exist'. Look go to w3 dot 4 truth dot net. There are scores of videos and articles for you to read. Get a basic education on historicity issues first, then come back to the debate. Otherwise, its a time waster for everybody and it makes you look silly. As for 'dictionary' def ... these also have editors. Get my point?
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
There is no proof Jesus ever existed. There are arguments that he may have, with some evidence, but certainly nothing conclusive. You also don't know who wrote most of the BIble or when it was written. You also have no way of validating the vast majority of what's in the Bible, especially with regards to its supernatural claims.
Is this the extent of your "evidence"? Very weak.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Please. There are several extra-biblical sources for the existence of Jesus: Tacitus, Tranquillus, Josephus and the Talmud. The last book of the Bible was written no later than 95 AD by a very old John. As for supernatural claims, do a study of OT prophecy. Quit saying Jesus never existed: you are only making a fool of yourself historically. I think the last time anybody seriously took your position was in the 1960s.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
I didn't say Jesus never existed. I said there's no conclusive evidence that he did exist. Further, even if there were a person called Jesus, there's no evidence that he was the son of a God or that any of the supernatural claims in the BIble are true.
You can name call as much as you like, it's not getting you any closer to the proof you claimed you had when this began. Please either demonstrate your proof or admit you lied.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Atheists know that historical evidence is our proof. If they say, History is not Science', and fold their hands thinking that they've won - it is just silly. Do you define 'conclusive' as some sort of video-tape? How many sources do you even need? It is a set-up. Did you google 'extra-biblical sources for jesus of nazareth'? Why don't you watch WLC and Peter Millican, 2011 at Birmingham - a heart-pounding debate if ever there was one.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
Historical record is a form of evidence, not proof. However, such evidence is only relevant when it's accepted as fact.
"Go and look it up" is not providing evidence. If you have something relevant to say that proves your claim is true, then provide it. Otherwise, admit you lied. Please stop dancing around the issue and back up your claim.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV You're a funny guy, accusing me of dancing. All history is 'unrepeatable', and therefore has to be accepted or not. Look at holocaust-deniers. Look at 911 conspiracies. If you deny validity of history, you live on in the now and only in whatever your directly perceive. This is the trap of Enlightenment thinking, which was silly then and eroding yearly now. So, I will grant you the next request: 'What would constitute in your frame of ref, 'proof'. I cannot guess myself.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't "deny the validity of history". I stated a fact. There are many historians that aren't convinced that Jesus existed.
However, whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant. Even if I grant that he may have existed, it still doesn't go towards proving there's a God. Now you're asking me to define proof for you?
Proof - noun
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Now we are getting down to it yes? Let us grant that that last 2000 years makes no sense if Jesus was a fiction. Grant that he existed. The debate really is not that but 'Who was he actually?' I cannot do this in 500 chrs, but you can watch WLC, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Michael Ramsden. God cannot make you love Him; so He must be subtle, quiet, gentle. Would you not go insane if an omnipotent God showed up when you were not ready? So he woos you like a lover & friend.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
Why do the last 2000 years make no sense if Jesus was a fiction?
Whether or not gods exist has nothing to do with whether I love them. Even if the Christian God did offer sufficient evidence to accept it as real, I would still find him cruel and immoral and see no reason to love it.
Either way, your argument is appealing to reason (bad reason, but still reason). Reason is not proof.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV You are getting closer, I think, when you say, 'even if..sufficient evidence...I would still find him cruel and immoral.' Now, given your feelings toward God, what if He burst upon your reality without attenuation? Would you not rage against Him in every case? I would like you to read either 'The Holiness of God' by RC Sproul, a theologian's essay, or 'The Shack' by William P Young, a theologian's fictional work. I recommend 'The Shack'. It challenges, even for christians.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
8 Replies later, still zero evidence provided.
I don't know why I bother responding to you people.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV I have asked you many many questions to which you have given no response. You know that there are literally hundreds of hours of apologetic debate to be easily found, but do you watch them? Did you read any of the books I recommend? Did you even answer my question, 'What would constitute proof for you?' When you only repeat your statement 'gimme proof!' over and over again, future readers of these postings will clearly see which of us is 'not bothering to respond.'
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
Indeed so. I'm not here to answer your questions. You claimed you can provide proof of God. Now do it.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV 1) Over 300 OT prophecies describing the life, nature and mission of the Jewish Messiah, 2) Jesus being in fulfillment of them, 3) historical eye-witness testimony 4) OT prophesies non-Messianic also being fulfilled as they go.
So: I can provide Proof of Jesus, Jesus was God, therefore I have provided Proof of God. (Hard trying to condense 100 hrs of debates into 500 characters). Watch them yourself why don't you? Watch WLC vs Peter Millican at Birmingham, or any Michael Ramsden
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
So, it comes down to the Bible. A book written by unknown authors, most likely people who were Christians and had a vested interest in confirming his "miracles", years after his death.
This is what you call proof? In a court, or any scientific enquiry, you would be laughed out the door.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Talk about circular reasoning! The creators of a theology to define Christianity was created by Christians? As for 'vested interest', the only pay-off believers got for 300 years was persecution, poverty & pogroms.If the early disciples knew it to be a lie, they would have abandon their believe at the first blush of trouble. Clearly you have not watched WL Craig, Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, John Lennox or anybody else in debates. Please learn bible historicity.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
Apologetics is simply another word for "reasoning". Anyone can reason their way to anything. Reason is not evidence or proof, it's simply an argument.
I can only conclude that either your idea of what constitutes proof is severely lacking or you're being deliberately dishonest. If you had any proof, you would have offered it from the start.
In future, please don't misrepresent the truth by claiming to be able to show people proof.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV It looks like we just have some crossed-wires on semantics. I hope people reading this chain will see that I never was trying to be dishonest. Do you think people would even want some kind of scientific proof? They would rage against the results in any case. To readers of this chain: I hope you will be able to see from the tenor of the conversation, the inner heart of each person - judge for yourself who you'd wanna hang with. Conversation done.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
You talk a lot but say very little
sonykroket 1 week ago
@quakerman7 uh yes we want proof...proof is testable...proof is knowledge...science is the advancement in the knowledge of the species....whens the last time the bible or church has tried to advance anything...they dont...they wont...the more you know the more likely you will see through there veil of lies and deceit..just keep paying them there money...they will keep you there as long as possible... if every one stop giving religion there hard earned money..it would colapse.. and they know this
BIGSTRO64 5 days ago
@BIGSTRO64 Science is only one discipline among many. Each discipline has its own tool-set. As for money: I agreed. That is why I only go to churches who do 3 things: 1) do not take donations from non-members, 2) isolates the finances between the business leadership and the spiritual leadership, and 3) make an accurate monthly account of their finances. Distrust every other organization that does not follow this model, I say.
quakerman7 5 days ago
@quakerman7 WLC is delusional and his views only matter in his head and the poor people he cons into his nonsense..oh dont start with that book of fables parables and myths...to learn biblical anything is to poison you mind with superstitious nonsense...... written by savage bigots in backwards palistine...the knowledge we have gathered as a species dwarfs anything they thought they new 2200 years ago.....with what we know today how can you refer anyone to the bible....
BIGSTRO64 5 days ago
@BIGSTRO64 Fine. You don't like WLC? Fine. Try some more debates. Try John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden. Mix it up why don't ya? Do some debates. Do some lectures. Watching such is not for cowards you know. You never know when one side will lay something out that you cannot defeat. On a personal note: 'savage bigots'? Cmon, let's see if you can get a better grasp of history, will ya? The NT defeats, racism, sexism, classism, slavery. Can you quote the passages that do this?
quakerman7 5 days ago
@quakerman7 leviticus and nubers has alot to say about racism sexism and slavery......how to buy treat and beat slaves....ref to women as property and no better than slaves..who to sleep with..... classism ..how you can take slaves...as long as there not your brethren...but people from lesser tribes around you....i can keep quoting out of these two section alone but i dont have the characters to do so....
BIGSTRO64 5 days ago
@BIGSTRO64 oh but you dont think the old testament have any reference to the new testament....so the book it was add to has no relativity.....only when the genital yesuah meek and mild... all the thing in the old book can be just thrown out by mere men... you cant have it both ways......so your atheist to some parts of the book but not the whole idea.....so the new testamnet is better than old and we should just live by it.....the the god of this book is not all powerful or all knowing..
BIGSTRO64 5 days ago
@BIGSTRO64 The Bible starts off with Abraham selling-out his wife Sarai in order to save his neck when he went down to Egypt. It pretty much just keeps getting worse from there re: women. We have a whole book of fallen people, getting more and more confused about who God is and how to live. Prophets spent a good chunk of their time saying that a Messiah would show up and that he would bear divine characteristics. He finally did, 2000 yrs ago. Read the story right man.
quakerman7 4 days ago
@quakerman7 and the most damaging quote out of the NT is by jesus himself.....think not of tomorrow just follow me.......screw your kids family friends society ...just follow me...especial when i bring on the destruction of this world.......great....thanks all powerful all knowing...you new when you made us that this would happen....but you couldnt change anything....the whole book should be scrapped new and old....its not a moral guide or cares about the people that worship it just its on image
BIGSTRO64 5 days ago
@BIGSTRO64 This site probably has the most intense hatred of xtny of all the places I've been. A part of me says, 'screw it, find ppl who are open, seekers'. Another part of me says, 'Reach out to those who are drowning no matter what.' 64, you have everything backwards. The whole Bible is love, joy, grace, mercy, forgiveness, compassion and the self-sacrifice of a God who wishes for nothing less than the healing of all relationships. But, to get this, you have to read the whole thing. Coward?
quakerman7 3 days ago
@quakerman7 'historical eye-witness testimony'. Evidence for this claim? None. The gospels were written by four anonymous authors in a part of the middle east where 90% of the population were illiterate and prone to superstition. Furthermore, these accounts are completely interdependent, were written from at least 35 years after the death of Jesus and are strewn with contradictions. This is enough to justify the extraordinary claims?
FryderykFChopin 1 month ago
@FryderykFChopin Eyewitness from about 1500 people might just about do it. But then 1500 people saw David Copperfield make the statue of liberty vanish. But nobody thinks it really did.
FryderykFChopin 1 month ago
@quakerman7 Do you accept modern claims of alien encounters? Do you accept modern miracle claims made by the followers of Sathya Sai Baba? There are tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people, who will tell you they have personally witnessed the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. We're not talking about a handful of ancient third hand accounts written decades after an event, but thousands of people alive RIGHT NOW who can and will tell you what they saw.
mindsmirror 1 month ago
@quakerman7 Yet, I am beyond willing to bet that you do not accept the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba despite all of this "evidence" which is of exactly the same type as that which you claim. I have no problem accepting that a dude named Jesus may have existed in the region and time which the Bible claims. The problem is that no amount of claims to witnesses will ever demonstrate that he performed miracles for the same reason that it doesn't prove anything about Sathya Sai Baba.
mindsmirror 1 month ago
@quakerman7 Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable even when the witness is well educated and knowledgeable in the specific field which they are discussing. Now, when we throw in the fact that ancient witnesses were necessarily far less educated on average than the modern human, their accounts become even less reliable. As far as prophecy is concerned; do you really not grasp that when someone writes a book about someone who died decades earlier, in a time when records were very poor,
mindsmirror 1 month ago
@quakerman7 .. can make up details which will make Jesus' actions correspond with the prophecies of the OT. Apparently the Jewish people aren't as satisfied with Jesus' prophecy fulfilling capabilities, as they don't even think that these prophecies were fulfilled. You're on very shaky ground using the bible to prove itself. Saying, "Jesus must have been real, he does stuff in the NT which fulfills OT prophecy!" is utterly laughable circular reasoning.
mindsmirror 1 month ago
@mindsmirror Circular reasoning would be if Jesus fulfilled in the NT, prophecies created in the NT. Fulfilling OT prophecies is linear man. As for what the Jewish people are/not satisfied, just remember, all the original Christians were Jews, including that Pharisee of Pharisees, Saul of Tarsus.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7 This crap about making yourself a fool "historically" is laughable. You cannot demonstrate that Jesus actually existed. I have no problem accepting it, simply because it is inconsequential, but you don't have solid evidence. You have shaky evidence at best. Just like with Socrates, scholars do not actually know for sure that the Jesus described in the Bible ever existed at all. One other thing is certain; even if he did exist, there is no evidence for ANY of the supernatural claims.
mindsmirror 1 month ago
@mindsmirror Did you even google 'Extra--Biblical Sources for Jesus of Nazareth'? OMG, you are literally decades behind current scholarship on this. The 'Jesus never existed' comment is the hallmark of the least-educated skeptic. I no longer take you seriously, since the gap to Socrates is 1400 years, and Jesus' docs is 70, and you don't even know this. Bye bye
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
By the way, the whole system of vicarious redemption, according to the Bible, is based on belief without proof. If you KNEW that it was true, through proofs, the requirement of faith in Christ would be completely irrelevant.
It seems quite obvious to me that not only do you not have proof, but that your religion requires you not to have proof.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Your first statement is biblically false, in fact there is not even a word in hebrew for the faith that you are describing here. Your second statement makes no sense, as it is based on a false dichotomy set up in the first. Your third statement therefore is also nonsensical - and makes 2 errors in one. I do have proof, and Christianity in no way requires the 'not-having-proof' you are assuming. I've never seen a posting so wrong, so deeply, so fast.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7
I don't agree. However, that's irrelevant. You could resolve the argument by simply providing the proof you claim you have.
AntitheistPOV 1 month ago
@AntitheistPOV Saying, 'I don't agree' doesn't counter my statement that your definition of 'faith' is deeply flawed - in fact, specifically designed to be that way so as to cast all believers as idiots. Why don't you watch some Michael Ramsden or John Lennox. About 3-4 hours total should do it, just so you get a broad scope. Oh wait... everyone here only watches Sam Harris & Co. Its better you know...make sure not to expose yourself to any contrary opinions. Proof = Prophecies Fulfilled.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@xTSxALLDAY Okay, and all that means is that God may or may not be real, but can still be assumed to be nonexistent until evidence supports its existence. Meanwhile, religion, the systematic display of belief in God (at least in most cases) still perpetuates violence, hate, bigotry and fear with the feeble excuse of attempting to please God. Red herring my ass. Either God is real, and a dick, or nonexistent.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 'Religion, the systematic display of belief in God' perpetuates a,b,c,d with feeble excuse...' Historically, you have church history to back you up. However, what does that have to do with Jesus or God? As a Quaker, do you think I fall underneath the condemnation of your phrasing? Remember: it took 1200 years to screw Christianity up, and we Reformers have only been working on fixing it for 600. Give us another 600, please? Or maybe, I have it fixed now. Talk to me.
quakerman7 1 month ago
@quakerman7 Christianity was screwed up since the beginning. If you cannot back up your beliefs with rational justification, as opposed to your feelings or faithbased claims, then they are worthless. There is no justification for religious practice. Belief in God is separate from that, and deists have a much more legitimate belief than those who subscribe to a religion. As a Quaker, you assert to knowing God's desires for you to reach heaven. That claim needs proving. Prove it or go.
beatonm198 1 month ago
@beatonm198 1) defend your statement 'screwed up from the beginning'. 2) Agreed: faith must be grounded in evidence and reason. Listen to a few hours of John Lennox or Michael Ramsden. 3) It depends on what you mean by 'religious practice'. 4) Defend your legitimacy after watching several debates (also Ravi Zacharias). 5) Proof: I am working on a word doc to detail 60 (of 300+) OT prophecies re the Messiah. Peter saw the Transfiguration, but he valued Fulfilled Prophecy higher than even that.
quakerman7 1 month ago
Sam Harris starts at 4:17
JDoucette 1 month ago
brilliant... Harris, please keep talking until every living soul on this planet gets to hear your words
dingusmcgandhi 2 months ago
"The fridge is stocked with beer and the weather is just so." ahh my definition of happiness.
AcceptSolitude 2 months ago
Sam Harris is mother flipping brilliant!
ghm011301 4 months ago
sam harris the first vulcan, live long and prosper
asadchoudhrya 4 months ago
Eventually we will not need a word for Atheism... At least I hope.
thenofxer 5 months ago
Comment removed
thenofxer 5 months ago
isn't this julia sweeney?
slyjokerg 6 months ago
@slyjokerg
Yes.
SynapseVoid 4 months ago
Science is dogmatic by solely relying on the limited 5 human senses in its observations alone. It not only can't answer truths in human morality, justice, emotions & ones self awareness as an individual with free-will; it discounts all of these carte blanc as mere biochemical illusions via a limited world-view. If there's no truth in logic & reason merely because we are only biochemical puppets simply reacting to an external environment how can science be trusted as a truth seeking method? Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Science is not my god, my giant, my witch or my fairy queen, it is just the correct method of reasoning if you want to arrive at honest, truthful conclusions. It is not infallible but it will honestly attempt to arrive at a rational conclusion using the evidence at hand rather than pronouncing dogma and persecuting heretics. What other option would you suggest? Believe magic stories? Which magic story? How do you know which magic story is the right one? Does it matter?
templarart 6 months ago 2
@templarart
You realise that science gives credence to the 5 senses alone as being the only real tools of human truth thus dismissing your self-awareness as an individual with freewill as mere illusion. Science, by it's very limited methodology of what it considers real and not real dismisses the very self-evident truth and notion that you are you with choice and control over your biochemical system. Science states you are merely a biochemical robot and you call this a "rational conclusion"...?
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
@templarart
The methodology of science is an anti-evolutionary process presumption. If you give credence that the 5 human senses evolved 1st one, then 2 then 3... & that evolution is continuing you would not have to dismiss the self-evident truth about your self-awareness as an individual with free-will. That truth may be the very 6th sense that is still evolving & not mere biochemical illusion. How does science know we are not blind in some form or another to our external world as a specie?
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN There are far more than five senses.
inscrutabledirt 4 months ago
@inscrutabledirt
Not in modern science sadly. What other human sense other than the five does modern science accept as more than biochemical illusory? What other human sense other than the five does science use in it's methodology to derive experienced or observable truths, none...
WILLTHEWGMAN 4 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN No, there really are more than five. Equilibrioception, nociception, proprioception, and thermoception, to name a few.
inscrutabledirt 4 months ago
@inscrutabledirt
Thermoception and nociception are dependent and part of the touch sense process. Equilibrioception is dependent and part of the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) working in conjunction with the skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. None of your listed samples are extra sensory perceptions outside (not dependent) on one or more of the basic 5 human senses. All are part and parcel of the basic 5 human senses.
WILLTHEWGMAN 4 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN There are far more senses than the ones that I listed. You don't know what you're talking about.
inscrutabledirt 4 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN You're forgetting that alot of science is predicated on evidence that is not observed by the 5 senses. We now how instruments and tools that extend our senses. Electro-magnetic radiation can not be detected by our 5 senses except for a very small sliver that we call visable light, but we have good evidence that those non-visable radiations exist because we have a rational model of physics that predicts how we should be able to detect them. Science isn't just our 5 senses.
sexyloser 4 months ago
@sexyloser
Instruments and tools that extend our senses only extend one of the 5 we have, they are not a gain of a new sixth human sense. Electro-magnetic radiation is light and light is perceived by vision. Our senses are used for both whether seeing with our eyes alone or with tools. So, yes, science is only what we experience within our 5 senses, assisted or not. Even to make predictions one of our 5 senses is needed. This is why values, morals and aesthetics can never be judged by science.
WILLTHEWGMAN 4 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN lol... scientific tools extend our senses. we have x-ray vision with what could be called "6sense to 5sense conversion" tools
JohnF30Music 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think your point about scientific tools is perfectly valid but I would rather say these tools allow us to more accurately measure the world we experience. We cannot, however, escape the fact that it is "simply" an experience. Like Descartes pointed out; all we can know is that we are.
I can't agree with your second point however. Have you read Sam Harris' "The moral landscape"? I think it accurately describes how science can allow us to make objective claims about morals.
isakoqv 3 months ago
@isakoqv
I read it. Sam incoherently claims that morals can be objective but at the same times claims free-will of choice to be an illusion and that humans have no true free-will. He claims that "human flourishing" can be this moral objectiveness but human flourishing is just as subjective as any other human proposition. Which humans flourishing, the rapist or the victim, the aborted baby or the mother? Should quality of life outweigh longevity of life? Is freedom more important than safety?...
WILLTHEWGMAN 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I have a hard time understanding why you think there can be no objective morals if the concept of free will is an illusion. Could you explain that?
Also, I can't see how the fact that well-being is subjective stops us from making objective observations about it. Hunger is subjective. So is pain. These are experiences caused by physical processes. Most people would agree that we can talk about them objectively.
isakoqv 3 months ago
@isakoqv
What would the value of any moral or immoral action be if there was no free-will in choice leading to that moral decision? How could one even be culpable for their actions if all their actions were merely biochemically and external environmentally made without any real individually chosen choice of action via free-will? The justice system would become meaningless if humans have no real free-will. How can Sam's process objectively answer the question, is abortion moral or immoral?
WILLTHEWGMAN 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Ok, let's say we have an axiom that says we wish to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. Any action that takes us closer to that state is defined as "bad", and the opposite is defined as "good". Now imagine we have a few very simple but conscious creatures capable of experiencing pain or pleasure who sometimes randomly inflict one of these feelings on eachother. The act of inflicting pain would per definiton be bad (immoral) while inflicting pleasure would be good (moral).
isakoqv 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN (cont.) This shows that actions can be bad/good independent of will. Now regarding culpability; can any creature in the example be considered inherently evil/good? No, but let's say the actions aren't completely random but effected by external stimuli. If a creature is less likely to commit a bad action if it is assigned blame for every bad action it commits, it would be bad for the others not to assign blame. Likewise, it is good to feel bad after a bad action.
isakoqv 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Your final question is very interesting. This reasoning shows there are objectively good/bad actions, but it never says it is easy to know which is which. It just says what matters in the example of abortion is what effect it has on conscious creatures. Every abortion has an impact both on the mother and society. It might not be possible to discern what action is better in the long run. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it scientifically. This is my reasoning :)
isakoqv 3 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Um, lol. Apart from anything else, I see you know nothing about science, since you think there are only five senses. There are 15+ known senses in science including things like proprioception. It was Aristotle who described 5 senses. Science has moved on from there, thanks. Unlike religion, science doesn't stop with texts written 2000 years ago. Science is always striving to describe things more accurately. Including emotions, self awareness, self will etc.
supakyatto 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supakyatto
Proprioception or Equilibrioception is dependent and part of the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) working in conjunction with the skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. None of these are independent senses like the 5 I am referring to.
BTW, Do you believe in free-will that is not mere biochemical illusion? If so, from where & what is your free-will agent derived outside of your biochemistry?
WILLTHEWGMAN 2 months ago
Cont> Science is just as presumptuous a human proposition and just as dogmatic and limited as a truth seeking method as a false religion. Science is only a sub-set of human philosophy but it's proposition as the sole truth mechanism discounts the very notion of truth in humanity and philosophy as no more than biochemical illusory. In this world-view philosophy has birthed a god called science which has proven it's own mother to be a myth! Cont>
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cont> Science can try to discover what we are as humans within are own very limited view by our five senses alone but it can never inform us of who we are with this method. Are we made in God's image or evolution's freak of nature? It is just as self-evident as ourself itself is that who we are as mankind is solely God's intent and will and not the science of man's reasoning without heeding one's soul in the balance to judge!
WILLTHEWGMAN 6 months ago
One of Harris' best deliveries, by far.
ludogogo 6 months ago 9
he looks like a more handsome Seth Green.
Zontertes 7 months ago
Sam Harris looks a bit like bear grylls!
professorimpossible 7 months ago
@professorimpossible he looks a fair bit more like ben stiller ;)
stan462462 7 months ago
@stan462462 Lol! Who said he can't be both!!
professorimpossible 7 months ago
It took a lot of guts to deliver this speech... Harris never fails to impress me.
Zen4Zorba 7 months ago 8
@Zen4Zorba
He has a stand that's very much different from the rest. I do not agree with everything he says, but I admit he is up to something, there's more in Harris than meets the eye, I see him as a man that craves leadership and almost his own show... and there is wood for that. I like his determination to express hypothetical assertions as good solid ideas, even when he has no good clue as to how to prove them right, from a naturalistic stand point. So yes that takes guts.
DrErkencho 7 months ago
I wonder if his occasional sharp inhaling comes from drawing his attention to his breath?
StarcrossedPacific 8 months ago
At 26:00 Harris defined humanity. As if he had created it himself.
Draeka 8 months ago
as usual, sam harris has real jewels to share :)
always a pleasure to listen to him, dawkins, hutchins et al
wakniss 8 months ago
@SymmetricStrings
thank you. that woman just went on and on and on and on ....
wakniss 8 months ago
@wakniss That woman is 'Julia Sweeney' a former cast member of SNL she was androgynous Pat. She is also one of the first comedians to criticize religion in her act. She is to Comedy, what Sam Harris is to Journalism in their stand against religion. If I were introducing her I'd make her look like a quietly composed church mouse as I start breathing into a bag halfway through = ) We can't all be as composed as Bill Maher [ Sam Harris: with Bill Maher ] < If you haven't seen it
linkjones 8 months ago
I like this Sam Harris! And I dont like green eggs and ham!
madridisinSpain 8 months ago
FSM is real! Blashemer!
SmartK8 8 months ago
Hmmm wonder what it's like to sit for 12 hours and do nothing...I don't think I'm capable of doing that...
Hermoor 9 months ago
Liked the fat fuck who did the intro. What a dizzy bimbo.
effee1000 9 months ago
Was she on SNL? Is she Pat? Julia Sweeney that's it, thanks wiki. Is this her?
RussianAssassin21 9 months ago
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy" On
YOUTUBE is a compilation of evidence revealed by former military personnel,
astronauts, politicians, American presidents. This contains credible aired news
UFO footage. The compilation reveals knowledge of life beyond Earth + the
current ongoing presence and initiated contact which has being hidden from the
public for over 50 years + Article "Official Government Disclosure Has Begun"
on the front page of DivineCosmosDOTCOM
Futurecop2012 9 months ago
Fucking brilliant speach... I wish I was a more clever writer who could type into this box the profound affects this 30+ min clip had on me...
Gravija1980 9 months ago 2
this 'deep introspective feeling of content' Harris promotes is great; I've found it is achieved by simply having one strong priority which comes before everything else: ethics. Putting ethics, the promotion of wellbeing & destruction of suffering, first is the way forward. On that introspective note, psychedelic drugs can be used responsibly to find out how consciousness works. In closing, any talk of wellbeing without mentioning the endocannibinoid system is sort of lacking. Good talk though!
tobynsaunders 10 months ago
@tuzmor Amen
perfumesunglasses 10 months ago
@tuzmor Amen
perfumesunglasses 10 months ago
@tuzmor Amen
perfumesunglasses 10 months ago
What a nice lady, I wish She was one of my friends.
johneamer 10 months ago
watch?v=tN7U0XEcud8
Tolle is a must watch if you want to understand Sam's second bit of the speech.
SikhiArt 10 months ago
Travelling in the reason landscape: Going through the comments after hearing Dr. Sam is like jumping from the Everest and landing in the bottom of mariana trench!!
amiyaiitkgp 10 months ago 2
man, i have to get my suit game up, harris always rocks the best suits
BrotherOmi 11 months ago 3
@BrotherOmi
I'm a Catholic. But yeah Sam Harris rocks!!! So he's suits are so cool!!! But really I admire how he carries himself (Speaking and dressing up). Growing to be a big fan of this guy. hahaha
gatch45 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gatch45 I'm an Atheist. But yeah Jesus Christ rocks!!! His hair is so cool!!! But really I admire how he did not exist and still carried himself thro centuries. Im indeed a big fan of that guy.
SamuelRust 10 months ago
If one word could describe Sam Harris it would be, "Contemplative".
CassAnayadotcom 11 months ago
Rabble Rabble Rabble!!!!
HighPoweredLasers 11 months ago
@HighPoweredLasers wtf are you talking about.
Olsonic 11 months ago
@Olsonic
It was a joke about Sam Harris provoking even a room of atheist. It was not directed at the content.
HighPoweredLasers 11 months ago
@HighPoweredLasers ahh I see, noted. sorry.
Olsonic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO SEE A VIDEO THAT SHOWS WHAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS DO TO GIRLS IN IRAQ TYPE THIS IN YOUTUBE RIGHT NOW OR VISIT MY CHANNEL! The video is called, "The video America's Army does not want you to see (Warning Graphic)". THIS WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW OF THE "WAR ON TERROR" FOREVER! PLEASE IF YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH WATCH IT.
Sandtrigganigga 11 months ago
@SymmetricStrings i think you'll find he starts talking at 4:12
....wannna fight about it?
KalypticBass 11 months ago
Sam blasphemed against the FSM! I'm sure pirates will show up at his door and amend things
adamtequalsgreat 1 year ago
@adamtequalsgreat Might drink his beer but thats about it. ;)
cornsnoggle 11 months ago
Do we really need the first 4 min of this video?
firedogvegas 1 year ago
He needs to concede at least a bit that Muslim craziness has a lot of basis in politics.
johnpotter26 1 year ago
@johnpotter26 nope. You have to understand that it's all written down. Politics is a whole other ball game.
vladbcom 1 year ago
Comment removed
ryanp123456 1 year ago
@johnpotter26 He acknowledges that it is a matter of politics by making the point that it is only a matter of politics because it is a matter of religion first.
ryanp123456 1 year ago
As always, I'm thoroughly impressed with Sam's elocution and wit. What confuses me is why he would opine on political strategy in this manner, especially given his previous criticisms of individuals straying from their domain of expertise. While I have no experience on Cap. Hill myself, it strikes me as completely obvious that major social change is impossible without some sort of group coordination and, therefore, labeling.
panther451 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him first married a twice widowed lady named Khadija may Allah be pleased with her. He was 25 and she was about 45 and she was the one that proposed to him. Your claim about prophets marrying young girls is a fallacy. However if the young girl CONSENTS to the marriage with the older man there is NOTHING wrong with that aslong as she truly consented.
Sandtrigganigga 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen this is your preconceived notion of Jesus is lord that is making you accept him as a God. You can select a few verses from different places in the bible to suit your perception. However I believe those verses to indicate that the word of God and what Jesus taught are the same. Jesus peace be upon him is not God!
Sandtrigganigga 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen Can you point out ANY verse from the bible where Jesus Christ peace be upon says unequivocably, I am god or worship me! I am willing to accept Christianity if you can point out an unambigious verse from the bible of Jesus himself saying I am god or worship me.
Sandtrigganigga 1 year ago
@SandtrigganiggaJohn 14v7 From now on, you do know him and have seen him John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me
Jesus accepted worship as God. Matthew 14:33 “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him Jesus, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Thechristiancullen 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen Muslims love Jesus peace be upon him more than Christians do. We respect Jesus peace be upon him more than Christians do. We also follow his teachings more than you do. We are not allowed to say his named with saying peace be upon him and i haven't seen you write it once. Jesus got circumcised on the 8th day and we Muslims are all circumcised. Majority of Christians aren't even circumcised. Jesus forbade alcohol and drugs yet most Christians are indulged in that.
Sandtrigganigga 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sandtrigganigga How can muslims love Jesus more when you do not KNOW HIM? Have you asked the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart?
God's law is circumcised onto the heart of every born again believer. I agree many christians drink and this is why Jesus says NOT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ME LORD WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
.
Thechristiancullen 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen You are right we all have sinned in all our life times including you and me. The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians worship the creation instead of worshiping the creator. We Muslim cannot accept your doctrine of trinity of how God can be one but three at same time (1+1+1=3). What your involved in is called paganism. God does not need to come down to earth to die for human beings sins. EVERY man and woman is responsible for their own actions.
Sandtrigganigga 1 year ago
@Sandtrigganigga You are using the wrong fator; try *
ONE God = 1*1*1
Jesus is the creator and will be the judge. "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:3).
Thechristiancullen 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen It is not as ignorant to believe in a god, as it is to think that you know what that god wants of you.
Open a science book and get a true feeling of the wonder of the universe.
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp Evidence for God; (1) the cosmological argument; (2) the teleological argument; (3) the ontological arguement (4) the death and resserection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is not a case of God v Science, rather science without faith is lame.
Thechristiancullen 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen Before science, people tried to explain things through God. After science, people tried to explain God through science.
I think you have it twisted around. God is LAME WITHOUT SCIENCE.
Which makes the gods just lame.
You're right.It is not god vs. Science. Something that does not exist can not challenge anything.
It is REASON vs those who believe in god(s).
Harris asks, as I do, that you come to your senses.
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp it was the bearded religious non pork eaters who wanted to crucify Jesus, the Romans were reluctant to do so - yet is your SIN OF INDIFFERENCE that nails the Lord Jesus Christ to the cross
Thechristiancullen 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen Islam teaches us that God is ONE and only. He has no partners. Neither does he have any sons or daughters. God does NOT beget NOR is he BEGOTTEN! I can't understand that WHY would God need to come down in the form of flesh to die for our sins? When you say that you are LIMITING God's limitless power.
Sandtrigganigga 1 year ago
@Sandtrigganigga What partners???
Bible illustrates ONE GOD = ONE wife
Israel was in whoredom, polygamy is sin and led to prophets being led astray, divided families and jealousy.
God needed to come down himself because man cannot save himself through doing works based relgions. Someones blood had to pay the price. Hallelujah - What a Saviour.
Thechristiancullen 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen "God needed to come down himself because man cannot save himself through doing works based relgions. Someones blood had to pay the price. Hallelujah - What a Saviour."
Human sacrifice by the Mayans and Incans is looked upon with angst, yet your Jesus (human) sacrifice is looked upon as a miracle.
Isn't this a contradiction?
How does a God sacrifice himself to HIMSELF?
Nonsense...
gjsterp 1 year ago
@Thechristiancullen :"Israel was in whoredom, polygamy is sin."
Church created (sin) nonsense.
polygamy is cultural. Some use it, some don't.
There are tribes in South America that the woman has more than one husband - cultural.
The church and You labeling it as sin, only makes it so in your mind.
There is no such thing as sin. It is a creation of the mind, like God.
gjsterp 1 year ago
@Sandtrigganigga "Islam teaches us"
Have you considered:
reading more worthwhile books.
Seeking more worthwhile information?
Seeking more truthful information?
Dumping superstition from your thoughts?
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp Your telling me to read