You're LYING. NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT CONDONE SLAVERY! NEVER... You are talking about descriptions of what went on. Also the Hebrew word translated is not slave it is SERVANT. People were under contract (5 yrs) and good work for many, or they stayed with families sometimes voluntarily like members of the family for life. The NT description is different where Christians are slaves. I am a willing slave to God, family, country and career.
@gmcjetpilot The bible tells you how you cannot and how you can treat your slaves. It says that Jews can enslave other races but not enslave other Jews (a racist rule). How is that not condoning slavery? This is not a reference to servants, there are bible verses that deal with servants, indentured and otherwise. These quotes are about slavery.
I'm not a Jew or God, take it up with them. I'm a Christian. The proper translation from the Hebrew is SERVANT not slave. (TRUE!) That will help you see the true context of these days of servitude which are over Biblically. We're in new testament days. With respect suggest these concise clear links; please take time to review, cheers. Google:
@gmcjetpilot You keep evading the obvious fact. If the writers of the bible had wanted to, they could have condemned slavery for the evil it is. Instead they chose to regulate its practice. Clearly the practice is perceived as evil since the Israelis were themselves supposedly enslaved. So why not just bite the bullet and say slavery is evil and no Jew should have slaves? Jesus never mentions slavery. Clearly the bible morally fails to condemn one of the most evil practices imaginable. T
@gmcjetpilot You keep evading the obvious fact. If the writers of the bible had wanted to, they could have condemned slavery for the evil it is. Instead they chose to regulate its practice. Clearly the practice is perceived as evil since the Israelis were themselves supposedly enslaved. So why not just bite the bullet and say slavery is evil and no Jew should have slaves? Jesus never mentions slavery. Clearly the bible morally fails to condemn one of the most evil practices imaginable.
That's different. The Bible does NOT condemn "slavery", true! Bible doesn't approve it either. I'm not a Jew living in Old Testament days, Amen. Christians were "slaves". Jesus has words about Christians being good "slave" (servant) to their master. I'm a willing loving slave to my wife and kids. I'm a slave to my employer. Servant to God. Slavery isn't bad in that context. FORCED kidnapping imprisonment of Blacks 1619 - 1789, clearly immoral. There's no approval of that in Bible?
@gmcjetpilot If the bible is the supposed perfect word of a perfect loving god, why is one of the worst crimes imaginable not resoundingly condemned? To attempt to regulate something evil rather than abolish it, you, in effect, justify its existence. No amount of playing with the word slave changes the fact that Christians have a history of condoning slavery using the bible as "evidence." Why did your omniscient god not foresee the inevitable evil use of his words? Slavery is always evil.
Muslims take land & woman (slaves) as war booty. Muslims enslaved Blacks 1000 yrs before Black slavery in America. Do Christians practice slavery? No. Muslims? Yes slavery, human trafficking exist today in Islam. Your concern is misplaced. Help save little girls & woman from being abused in Islamic countries today. People accused of adultery or homosexuality are executed. Saudi Arabia executes 40 times USA's capital deaths. The Jesus, Christians & the Bible is not a threat.
@gmcjetpilot Christians have traditionally practiced slavery in Europe from Rome to the slave trade of the 1800s. Everyone practiced slavery in the ancient world. But yes, you make a very good point about S.A. However, that does not mean that we should rest on our laurels in the west. Fundamentalist Christianity is a threat to my rights personally, so you will excuse me if I am more concerned with it. Many Moderate Christians are unwilling to condemn it robustly and even at times defend it.
The problem with Atheists is that they have a fundamentally different God in mind than Christians do, that is also why atheists such as yourself make false assertions about Christianity in general. Going to Church wont make you a good Christian, nor does it make you a believer It would be far to ignorant to assume such a thing. Being Christian requires work, hard work, reading the Bible once or twice is a joke, read it 20 times and I promise you your superficial view will change entirely.
@steelcatena Your statements have nothing to do with anything I have said. If you listen better you will realize that I AM discussing the biblical/Quranic god, not some god I made up. There is probably a definition of god that has the possibility of existing, but this god would be so far afield from the Christian God that Christians would scarcely recognize him as a god at all, let alone see him as Yahweh. I don't need to read a flat earth theory multiple times to know its is bunk.
Nope. To be labelled a christian requires only one thing. To believe in jesus and to accept as your savior. You can be Jack the ripper, and still get into heaven. This says so in the bible (the requirements).
But what's a bummer for you christians is that your god will be choosing randomly people to get into heaven. Randomly. Regardless wether they are absolved of their sins. Again, it says so in the bible.
No I was pointing out the 2+2 always equal four. Hydrogen and oxygen of a certain number make a stable water molecule. The laws of nature are constant.
In my field of psychology, race is considered a cultural concept, not a biological one. And yet it would be hard to explain how dark skin or blond hair are not biological. It is a controversy.
I have never seen any physicist who claims intuition was anythign but a place to get ideas, clearly intuition does not give us truth. Intuition gives us vague information about ourselves. In fact, physicists frequently talk about how physics concepts are counter-intuitive.
No I am talking about basic truths of science. Gravity does not just suddenly become a repelling force. I have no faith about this. It is a fact with a lot of evidence to support it, and so I acknowledge it. The complete removal of heat creates the lowest temperature possible- absolute zero. The fastest any object can go is the speed of light- an absolute.
Your idea that faith is involved in all belief is doubtful. Believing that the sun will come up tomorrow is not faith, it is knowledge of the sun and earth and astronomy. Believing in a god that cannot be seen or has no evidence for his existence is clearly another kind of belief. What cant you just admit this obvious fact?
Your equating of everyone as equally moral and evil is doubtful and overly simplistic. In Lebanon, Iraq, Thailand, China, and multiple other countries there is sectarian violence between Muslims and others or between Muslims themselves. The vast majority of religious violence on this planet current involves Muslims. How would you explain this?
String theorists mostly agree with Dawkins in that they see no metaphysical implications related to string theory. When quantum theory was all the rage in the popular press about 30-40 years ago, there were multiple metaphysical books that tried to relate the theory to metaphysics and even religion (e.g "The Tao of Physics"). Physicists claimed these ideas were based on either a misunderstanding of physics or wild vague speculation. What do you think?
You are correct in saying one thing. This si what it means to YOU. There is nothing about current scientific thinking that leads SCIENTISTS to the same conclusions. Why must there be a universal mind? Why cant the universe around us be devoid of entity despite ourselves or other intelligent animals? Why the tendency to want the universe to have some kind of entity associated with it? What would it mean to you and others if the universe were non-conscious.
about your statement the Quran is homophobic because it states that homosexual relationships are wrong??
As I recall from the elementary school, to be phobic of something is to be afraid of that. Tell me, how can someone be homophobic if someone thinks that homo sexual relationship is wrong?....Very illogical, don't you think?
Its seems illogical because you did not stop to think about it. Words don't have meaning based on their constituent parts, but based on how they are used. Homophobia is a fear or hatred of homosexuality or homosexuals, including the belief that it is morally inferior. Sura 4.21 says " And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both" This says that gay sex is wrong, and gay men deserve to be hurt. Imagine if a holy book said "if they become Muslims, hurt them." Isn't this immoral?
Your joking right. The Koran is filled with anti-Jewish statements. Example in Chapter 5: 60-64 Jewish people are cursed by Allah who is angry with them and compares them to apes and pigs. It is amazing that we are still discussing this. Both the new and old testaments and most other holy books claim to have absolute truth which is unique. This implies other religions are wrong or mistaken. This deems others inferior of belief because they do not have your belief. How is that not prejudiced?
It's really nice to see someone who has not become atheist because of some personal reasons or because of anti-religious feelings.
That is like our shrink Mr. Sage, who claims to be atheist, who is NOT anti-religious because of his sexual orientation, who does NOT generalize people in a group. His atheism is only that he does not believe in God... I think even that is because of personal reasons rather then logical.
Sorry guy. But some of us beleive this that we wish were false, make us uncomfortable, and may even at times be a burden. Facing the awful truth is a matter of integrity for some of us. The question is whether you beleive in believing based on faith. I obviously do not.
No it does not take faith to beleive anything. It only takes a few obvious assumptions to beleive in scientific evidence. (e.g. The assumption that the universe does not change its laws). Scientific and religious beliefs are not equal- science is clearly superior in that it is based on evidence not faith. "Changing reality" (as you say) from what is true to what is false means humans are attempting to solve problems with incorrect information, this is why so many problems remain unsolved.
about science being superior to religious belief since it's based on evidence and not faith. My religious faith is based on evidence and if it would have "1" thing that is 100% water proof contradiction then I would not follow it. The same goes for my scientific beliefs. For some reason you think that scientific belief is only based on evidence while religious belief is not?
Yes, it is obvious to anyone who is honest that science is based on evidence and religion is not. Almost, all religious arguments were debunked along time ago, EXCEPT AMONG THE RELIGIOUS. When I hear religious arguments now, they are all ones I have heard before, and there logical flaws are obvious. If you do not see the contradictions in God belief, I do not know what to tell you. Also, lack of belief in god is not only based on contradictions.
It is amazing that you believe you are making no assumptions when you beleive in a man's claims that he talked to a space-daddy in the sky. And then you claim scientific experiments supposedly are based on assumption when their whole point is to test for truth and assume nothing. You live in a strange world.
My mistake, we are all the same human race what I meant to say was ethnicity and skin color.
However my point was that humans have the ability of grouping even, a useless thing like last name has a facebook community.
This is for everybody who says that "all evil is because of religion" an "the violence would not exist if there where no religions". So religion is not to be blamed its humans.
If religion encourages violence like you say it does then every single religious person would be violent.
I can tell when a person is prejudge mental, a typical behavior is to generalize. I know you say your a shrink but it's easy to see the fault in others rather then in your self. So I think you need to go to a shrink.
I never say that all Muslims are violent and I am a shrink.
If your a Muslim you must beleive Muhammad's violence was justified. If you're Jewish, you believe the genocide in the old testament was justified. Being violent does not require hurting others, it only requires that you agree with the policy of hurting others, support an organization that hurts others or encourages hurting others, or being silent when others are hurt. Some Jews/Muslims don't beleive this, they're called heretics.
You seem to be on to something interesting when you refer write "one faith vs another". However it's not the whole truth, if you widen the scope, then you will see that it has nothing to do with religion.
The territoriality is a part of life, if it's not Religion then its Race, Country, City, Neighborhood, Families and anything that can be grouped. My religious faith is and should be something that concerns only me and my God. Sure we can have dialogs but it should be just dialogs
Homophobic Suras in the Koran. I would print them all but there is not enough space.
Koran 4.21
And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate.
I agree to most of your points. However, islam is not as hypocritical as you present is here. Most muslims know very well about the violent stuff in their scripture and they follow those ideals.
I am not so sure, but clearly I have no way of knowing. It seems to me that if most Muslims followed their Holy book (and this goes for Christians and Jews as well) there would be much more violence. it is amazing that some people read the violent parts of the Quran to justify there behavior but miss the peaceful parts. Then there are others who practice the peaceful parts and ignore the violent parts. Human being capacity for denial never ceases to amaze me.
You can find a lot of Christians who (hypocritically) will reject bad things in the Bible, but based on my experience with muslims (I grew up among a lot of them), they have a fear of rejecting anything written in their scriptures. They'd rather find some way of defending it.
But there also IS a lot more violence in muslim societies, so it doesn't really contradict your argument.
The fact that you have lived among Muslims does not implicate that you have understood them. And your statement clearly proofs it. The best way to understand is to debate,but then you need to have a good knowledge on the subject and on human behavior to draw conclusion,which you seem to lack
And which statistics do you refer to when you say that there are more violence in Muslim societies?
Your comentS seems to be Christian friendly and anti-Muslim maybe its because your Christian
Why would Muslims be more violent if they follow Quran? More specifically what exactly does Quran encourage in the form of violent behavior.
What strikes me is the fact that people love the "karma" theory where life punishes you if you where bad, but everybody flips as soon as a book mentions that God will punish you if you where bad. Reward-Punish is a part of the nature of life.
1) As for those Muslims who choose to do bad, they are no more different then a person without a religious faith who has a clearly knowledge about the basics of what is good/bad but still chooses to do the bad thing.
2) My personal understanding is that most of todays violence in Muslim society would be erased if people where more educated. And any Muslim that does not educate him/her self in science etc. is not truly a Muslim. Because one of the important concepts of Quran is education and science. In many cases just to understand it you have to have a knowledge of science.
Also lets not forget that Saddams and Usamas where created and supported by USA for their dirty works.
Yes but if a non religious person does evil, he does not do it in the name of his disbelief. Terrorists frequently kill IN THE NAME of Islam. There is a difference.
The response video of the woman was hilarious. It was like she wasn't taking a word in and was only hearing the insults.
She picks up a book called "The GOD Delusion" and she expected a science lesson? I don't really want to say it, but I honestly feel bad for people like this. I don't want to look down on anyone, but it's sad to see how people are so close-minded to different ideas.
People who listen to Dawkins think he has this rule of infallibility or something and he has a monopoly on the facts. Bum rap? He has this fanatic following of mostly young college kids that he preachs his fundemantism too. It's like he is trying to put together this "Enlightened" movement. Bum rap? That couldn't be further from the truth.
The bum wrap I speak of is in reference to the video in question that my above video is in response to. My video has nothing to do with how he may act in other settings. Also, the reaction of conservative Christians and others to Dawkins has been equally absurd and I say so. There is nothing about whether those who follow him are getting a bum wrap, I never mention it at all.
Richard Dawkins gets a bum rap? I did a video several months ago on Dawkins. Nothing about religion. I did it on a quote out of Joseph LeDoux book, "The Synapic Self" LeDoux wrote about how Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, and Steven Pinker were all wrong on how they believed mind and behaviour are inherited. So, I spoke in the video on how Dawkins was wrong and I got 1 star and people insulted me. Saying, how I could say this about such a brilliant man, blah, blah... Bad rap my ass.
The bum wrap I speak of is in reference to the video in question that my above video is in response to. My video has nothing to do with how he may act in other settings. Also, the reaction of conservative Christians and others to Dawkins has been equally absurd and I say so. There is nothing about whether those who follow him are getting a bum wrap, I never mention it at all.
Bullshit. Someone who does not beleive in astrology is not called an aastorlgist. We do not talk about the philosophy of aastrolgy. Atheist have almost nothing in common in their beleifs other than a lack of belief in god. The only reason religious people want to turn atheism into a philosophy and a religion is so they have something to hang false disparaging attributes on. Also, it is a way of trying to artificially make atheism a dogma to artificially level the playing field.
But the playing field is not equal. Atheists base their beleifs on facts and are skeptics and religious people base their beleifs on myths without any evidence. This makes religions look stupid and makes them pale in comparison. Making atheism a full fledged philosophy or dogma is simply a political propaganda trick to camouflage the irrationality of religion and the rationality of atheism.
You prefer to dissolve any trace of truth that may expose a side of Atheism that you refuse to see and that you don't want others to notice. Was the truth of my deleted comments too hurtful to your Atheistic pride or are you so driven by hatred towards Christians that you would stop at nothing to push your view on others even if it takes deceit? With this action you have lost all credibility.
I prefer to delete comments that are redundant, verbose, repetitive, filled with obscenities, are overly mean-spirited, or say the say thing the last 20 persons said. Also, response disappear on youtube all the time, mine disappear before they are even posted sometimes. I have no memory of your posts or deleting them. If they were deleted i will let you figure out what the reason was.
Non one kills in the name of atheism, because there is no philosophy by that name. Hitler called himself a Christian repeatedly and claimed his war was part of Gods plan just like the genocidal wars of the early Jews. Stalin believed in a junk-science theory of history and "class struggle." Irrational ideologies come in secular forms as well as religious and are just as deadly. This does not change the argument that irrationality leads to violence, it supports it.
Why does a great, good, loving and powerful God let these terrible things happen to his people? If I had children, I would not let one of them commit terrible atrocities on another one of them. I love them all equally and want them all to be happy and safe. If I had one troubled child I would try to help them. Parents who do not try to help all their children are considered bad parents. Is God a bad parent? Why would he kill all his bad children in a great flood instead of helping them?
I will give you credit on one point: Christians do not read the Bible as they should. But, having read it as well as being familiar with Dawkin's book, there are points to be questioned. In fact, opposed to what many think, the word "love" is quoted more in the OT than the NT, although many believe the OT is only the wrathful side of God. You're right, ppl need to read more and listen less. Since Christians are not hurting ppl, why are atheists so hellbent on discrediting them--why care so much?
Christians ARE hurting people. They ave been hurting people for centuries, both psychologically and physically including the encouragement and even the carrying out of murder. The current situation is that conservative Christians are the leading cause of low self esteem and self doubt among women, gays, and people of other faiths. Christian condemnation is heard by children and has a profoundly damaging effect.
Absolutely not, where are you getting this from? I can understand that you may bring up the Crusades, which certainly is not a high point in Christianity. But, you speak as though you have research backing up your claims of psychological torment, which simply does not exists. Only because its doctrine antagonizes your own beliefs regarding homosexuality do you say this. What psychological harm does it bestow? There are many other atheists in the world who are against homosexuality as well...
Your kidding me, right? Christians teach an unhealthy guilt-ridden morbid preoccupation with sex that leads to sexual hang-ups and dysfunction, they frighten children and adults with threats of hellfire, they stunt the philosophical and spiritual growth by discouraging exploration of other ideas that conflict with Christianity, they demonize others who do not beleive as they do, they encourage, sexism, homophobia, anti-liberalism. Historically they have encouraged war, slavery, antisemitism, etc
I am not advocating atheism per se, I am advocating scientific humanism with atheism as an attributes. This is the philosophy of most scientists but not all "atheists." Some people call themselves atheists for irrational reasons. I am not referring to those people. I am referring to those with a scientific worldview. I have never heard any such person express homophobic views since such views are inherently irrational and absurd. Homophobia is the result of dogmatic religious thinking.
SkepticSage: "Christians ARE hurting people. They ave been hurting people for centuries, both psychologically and physically including the encouragement and even the carrying out of murder."
MoooHamMad: You sound like the old Russian secret police and their propaganda methods to demonize Christians and Jews by associating the entire Russian Orthodox Church and their members with negative propaganda.
The result was a cataclysmic genocide of 30 million Christians. Jews were also killed in huge numbers. Ah, the things Atheists would do now if they were ruling a superpower.
I'm not even counting the global genocides perpetrated by Atheists worldwide. You speak about Christians being evil, murderers, poisonous to society while completely and conveniently ignoring the crimes of those that were not Christian. Atheists are now killing Buddhists in Myanmar, they enslaved all people in N. Korea,etc.
These genocides you describe were done by secular ideologues, the very people I am condemning. Whether your ideology is a insane belief in a nonexistent god, a magical historical class struggle, or in worshiping a fatherland and its master-race, it amounts to the same thing and has the same result- the murder of billions of people. Current atheist books are written primarily by humanist scientists who believe in democracy and human rights and have never been in control of any government.
You refer to these facts as "negative propaganda:" The crusades, multiple religious wars, the murder of people who defied or disagreed with the church, and inquisitions. These are facts, propaganda are lies. You really need to look up your data before you write. Criticism based on historical fact is hardly propaganda.
SkepticSage:The crusades, multiple religious wars, the murder of people who defied or disagreed with the church, and inquisitions. These are facts, propaganda are lies
MoooHamMad:Lenin & Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Russian secret police, KGB, Fidel Castro dictatorship, Sandinistas, Che Guevara, Shining Path,Las Farc, Myanmar's Atheist military dictatorship,etc... Shall I continue? All of them Atheists,all of them perpetrated genocide,all happened during the past 100 years to present.
Now, you cannot deny that these are facts. Propaganda are lies. The same way you associate Crusades and Inquisition with all Christians, I can do exactly the same with genocide perpetrated by Atheists. And the same way you would deny those atrocities are associated with Atheism, I could claim exactly the same for your accusations against Christianity given the fact that NT doesn't command Christians to kill in Christ's name but to do exactly the opposite: to love your enemies and expose evil.
But you are such a poor scholar that apparently you miss all factors involved in the development of Crusades. Have you ever read and researched the abominable atrocities Muslims perpetrated in Europe during the almost 400 years of conquest. Have you ever heard about the 24,000 Castilians that were beheaded by Moors because they refused to embrace Islam? There you go, I already offered you one factor among many that leads people to rise up in arms against an oppressor, in this case the Crusades.
Am I denying that there were political and economical factors involved in the Crusades, be them positive or negative? No, in no way I'm saying that. Vatican also had interests in power while people had other interests like reclaiming back their heritage, history and sense of being. For example, do you know what led to the formation of Knight Templars? Muslims in Europe used to hide and ambush travelers, caravans and pilgrims, rape women and take them to their harem and to enslave "infidels".
The abuse was so great that a group of highly skilled people in the arts of war of the elite used their own wealth to create what was called the Knights Templar. The founder was Hugues de Paynes and 8 more knights from France. They began patrolling roads and protect the innocent and yes, they were Christians.
Saladin was terrified of them and this fear propagated among Muslims and they eventually ceased their attacks on caravans and pilgrims. This is just a scratch into the annals of history.
There were 9 Crusades & the inspiration of this movement was truly noble. The final Crusades lost purpose & turned into wars between kingdoms that were previously allies & sadly horrible crimes were perpetrated at the end, not for Christ but for power. That is the only part of the Crusades that you look at to judge all of it based on that. Every war has casualties and the worst the enemy, the more casualties. How many people died to defeat Hitler? 55 million people. That's the price of freedom.
How many Christians, Jews, and Buddhists were killed by Atheists before Atheists could realize that they cannot possibly destroy people's faiths and beliefs? It took 300 million innocent lives before Atheists decided to cease and desist their genocidal campaign. Now in the present, places like Russia and China have the largest growth of Christian communities in the entire globe; a lesson to learn: "the powers that be" can destroy the human body but will never be able to destroy the human spirit.
Yes, the dogma of communism has proved as deadly as the dogmas of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In fact the persecutions of Christians and others in communist countries is patterned after oppression religious people visited upon others and each other in the past and currently. Makes one almost beleive in karma, LOL. The conclusion? Ideology kills. Modern atheists are scientists not communists or ideologist of any kind. They are skeptics who reject all ideology and embrace science.
Genocides were not committed in the name of atheism but in the name of the dogmas of communism and fascism which no skeptical scientist would beleive. Communism and fascism are dogmas like Christianity and have had the same effect on people. They get people doing things they would not normally do by getting them to do evil while thinking they are doing right.
This is an argument that has been debunked years ago. Where have you been? Modern atheist are scientists. The "atheist" you mention believed in dogmas. Just because someone is an "atheist" does not mean they are rational, skeptical, or non dogmatic. One can be a dogmatic zealot without god, Communism and fascism are examples. Modern atheism is about the rejection of ALL dogmas and myths. Communism is a myth and myths kill. Communism is more like a religion than a scientific theory.
There are many stories, some of which have made national news in the US, where religious communities have persecuted atheists to the degree where they have been fired from their jobs, forced to leave rented accommodation and forced to leave their schools. Ostracized by their neighbours, often with physical attacks on them and their property. Is this what Jesus would do? Please don't show your ignorance of the fact that so-called christians are guilty of hurting others. They do . - today
What you are doing draagon66 is taking what few of the "Christians" do and assimilate it to all of us. You are correct in that some Christians do such things, but such news is what the media covers--bad news. Research has shown that ppl prefer to hear bad news, as counter intuitive as it seems. You never hear of the good things that Christians do or that come from Christianity. It is simply unfair that such assumptions are made.
I would also like to add that this is eerily similiar to the examples given my Skeptic, regarding homosexuality, drugs, and promiscuity. Some ppl simply do not understand regardless of or due to their differences.
It is familiar because you do not understand the difference, that being something called truth, derived from science and logic. Religious people think truth is derived from intuition and revelation. They beleive this in order to justify belief in things that are untrue but console them (e.g. Christianity). If you hear their defaming condemnations of gays, you will hear no facts. My critique of Christianity is based on facts. As they say "its the facts stupid." Your comparison is specious.
No, in fact, I go out of my way and describe what is common amongst Christianity though no universal amongst Christians. Again, I say so in the video. Your amking the assumption that if the NUMBER of good events outnumbers the number of bad events that this is unfair. Imagine I told you that the Holocaust is an unfair thing to focus on because it detracts from all the good things the Nazis did like hospitals, highways, and creating millions of Jobs. Wouldn't you be astonished? I am with you.
Hatred and fear of gays, suggesting women should keep to minimal roles in life, condemnation of free love, and ignoring the sociopathic amorality of big businessmen who fill their collection plates, is done by MANY Christians, not a few. Until very recently, racism was commonly added to the sexist, homophobic brew. This kind of thinking and preaching is commonplace and not unusual. Christians routinely teach bigotry to their parishioners and children creating hatred in society.
I typically admire someone who has a set of beliefs that they hold on to. It says alot about one's character. But, Skeptic, it seems as if you wish to annihiliate anyone's position different from your own, specifically Christians. You don't WANT them to be right, it seems, because that would mean you are accountable for something (sin). People do not like accountablility because it places emphasis on some aspect of their behavior, expected or otherwise. This is why liberalism strives.
Now, having said that and KNOWING that you will give a response such as "a lack of evidence" or "how overly simplified my rebuttal was", etc., I also know that nothing short of God Himself coming down to say "Hello" are you going to admit the possibility of His existence. So, why do I continue to discuss things with you? Because I'm tenacious, and I even look forward from your responses, regardless of my disagreeance. Everything, however, does not revolve around homosexuality, Skeptic.
Why should I not require a god to show himself to beleive? Is not his absence evidence against his existence? When did I ever say that everything is based on being gay? But then again, gay rights are a convenient litmus test for a person's integrity. If one can, as a heterosexual, agree to equal rights to people whose behavior is repulsive and immoral to you, you clearly are ready to accept the equal rights of everyone. If someone does not except the equal rights of gays, they are a hypocrite.
Holding onto beleifs without evidence is not a sign of character strength but weakness, a cowardly fear of living without absolutes. I wish to counter all positions based on nothing or falsehoods, because they have had a statistically high incidence of being associated with folly, oppression, and even violence. Liberalism makes people think for themselves and thus makes them responsible and accountable. Christians give their decisions over to religious authorities and abdicate responsibility.
Well, I have some stories of my own. In the early 80's, some miners were blasting out a sidewall to make a road near my home town. During one blast, the words "SEE GOD IN" were perfectly protruded to the extent that it was in the papers. Surely you wouldn't want to desribe the statistics of randomly occurence, or say it was a case of group hypnosis/hallucination? Could it be possible that this was a sign? Absolutely. Beyond reasonable doubt, this was no random inncident.
What is it about coincidence that you do not understand? If you sit on your back and look up at clouds, you eventually will see within about an hour a cloud that looks just like something in a most uncanny and spooky way. Our brain is made to scan the environment and look for familiar patterns. There are blasts daily all over the planet with debris dispersal occurring randomly. Eventually such blasts have the same effect as clouds, eventually you see something. We see what we want to see.
Coincidence? You must be kidding, Skeptic. We do see things in clouds, but this is not a good analogy because of the different psychological (and physical) processes taking place. Firstly, the brain "finishes" the scanned image of the cloud to a fixed representation of a known object, assimilating it to a familiar shape (a boat, perhaps). The clouds movement is also a variable that differentiates this among my blasting example a fixed object which does not move.
Even on fixed objects, the brain reads things differently depending on the degree it works to make sense of them (regarding random shapes, etc.) For example, by reading this text the striate cortex recognizes the high frequencies of the letters, as opposed to lower frequency images such as clouds. The degree of the blasting example I gave requires high frequency input read by the striate cortex, as opposed to "randomness" that you assume I mean, or by the cloud example.
The neurophysiology of perception is much more complicated than you are giving credit to. Recognition depends on the cell, stream of analysis, as well as many other variables for one to make such conjecture or simplistic analogy.
Your trying to explain neurophysiology to a psychologist. LOL! One truism that is agreed on in the field is the tendency of humans to misperceive. It underlies mental illness and dysfunctionality, religion being an example. People see what they want to see and more importantly, they overlook coincidences. If you get enough random patterns in front of you, some will look like familiar things. Our brains scan for things to confirm our beleifs. Christians see Christ, Buddhists see Buddha.
Yes I am. I do so because there are differences in the explanation that you and I give for the phenomenon. I am also a psychologist, and was formerly head over a neurophysiology lab, so yes, I have the credentials to do so. In addition, there are differences in seeing something physical which can be defined compared to that which is being percieved as something recongnizable to the biased eye. Take the dalmation picture, for example, or most any optical illusion--different than words on a page.
Did it ever occur to you that this experience was a mirage and the result of your condition? You heard what you wanted to hear. How is your hallucination evidence of anything? You choose to take an experience and interpret it as real in an act of faith. Why not look at all the possible hypotheses of what caused your experience other than a visitation. The reason you chose not to is emotional, not logical. You want it to be true so badly that you are willing to abdicate reason.
Today I'm 35 years old & the healing is still there. I know that God permanently healed me that day, 21 years ago & sometimes I think it's related to the constant daily prayer of my mother, asking God to intercede on my behalf. I remember that in the Gospel, Jesus told his disciples to pray frequently and that eventually His Father would respond. You could ask me, why God doesn't answer all people that pray with the same level of faith? My answer is 'I don't know', but I do know that God exists.
I was an atheist before I read the God Delusion, I just didn't know it.
I thought I was the only one that saw the outright hatefulness in the bible, the book gave me the courage to admit that I was an atheist when somebody asks what my beliefs are.
The sad thing is, I still feel contaminated by my indoctrination, I still feel the intellectual laziness forced upon me. Fuck the Watchtower Society.
great video. i like the way each true adjective of god hit that lady like a bullet. if you ask me, christians and all other theists cant handle the truth
Well, maybe it is funny (not my humour), but this woman hasn't got ANY constructive or confincing reaction to Dawkin's questions and verbale attacks. And, in my opinion, no religion has.
i can see God when i see Arabs and Israelis make peace, when rich humble themselves to the poor, when religious leaders start to work in a decent way, When i see no hunger in Africa, when i see super powers behave, when i see Muslims abandoned swords,when Christians stop minding fathers, persists, when Jews stop racism, and when politicians became clean
If the above examples are the only time you can "see" God, then clearly you have never seen him and will probably never see him. But I guess that was your point.
on one hand you dont like god intervining and think it would be lame and make the world an alice in wonderland place. and on the other hand when he reduces to just giving his advice, then US FUCKERS like the privilages he gets and play around with it, make so much diffrent variations... you blame him! and even more fucked up, if he says what anyone would say "get rid of the fuckers playing around with the idea" you say "what a fucked up god!"god ur hard!
When did anyone say they did not want God to intervene? What we said is there IS no god to intervene. God does not give advice because he isn't there to give it. People (prophets) give advice while claiming their advice comes from God. They do this to sell their ideas so they can gain power and influence. You seem to be saying that our demands of god are unreasonable. But we demand nothing since there is no one to demand it from. How can we be unreasonable to a god that does not exist?
i wasnt talking about your comment. i was talking about mashaallahs interesting exchange of "la la land" then we believe in god.. suggestion.
as for your purely subjective opinion about god, your right! if god doesnt exist, then he never sent advice or anything. but i was talking pritty clearly about if he did exist and a religion out there was his message.
and dont force ur position because i can equally be unconstructive by saying "how can i be reasonable to an athiest when god does exist!"
I am not forcing anything on anyone. I am just saying that it is dangerous to start saying what it is that some hypothetical daddy in the sky wants. It is easy to control naive and gullible people by saying stuff like that. The problem with your last statement is that it assumes that God existing has as much likelihood of being true as his non-existence. That is rubbish. If god exists, where is the evidence? Things that are likely to exist have evidence. Our contentions are not equally valid.
1. i didnt say you are forcing anything.. i said ur argument style is.
2. "hypothetical DADDY" is not nessesaryly what religion is claiming to deal with.
3. its easy to control niave and gullible people in sooo much other ways too! so, even if god does exist in anyway or form, fuck him for our own stupidity?
4.actually no they are, cause "where is the evidance he doesnt".. the only things u claim support that are arguments that apply to a specific vision of "god". and not just "god".
1. I do not understadn how my style "forces" anything. Your meaning is not clear. 2. I was not saying that religions claim to have a hypothetical daddy in the sky, I meant that that is what it amounts to psychologically. We can create complex religious systems of some sophistication. This does not change the fact that our beleifs are based on fear rather than reasoning and scientific evidence. We want a relationship with a protecting agent to sooth our fear much like a child wants with a parent.
3. True, however, religion is clearly created to change people's behavior. This is true whether the religion is true or not. What do you mean by "fuck him for our own stupidity"? Again your meaning is not clear. 4. My arguments do not only apply to one specific definition of God. They apply to all definitions that are based on no evidence. I've seen no evidence for any definition of God. There is no evidence for unicorns either yet no one takes them seriously. Why a different standard for God?
3. nope not all. and did you know there are actually religions that have no deities to begin with? "fuck him for our own stupidity" means the responce u guys are advocating. that since most religion using people use it for wrong, then to hell with it even if its possible that one of them actually can benifit those who will use it for real good and gain.
What do non-theistic religions have to do with anything? I've studied most religions and all involve changing people's behavior and putting people in some kind of power over others. Islam is a good example. If a medicine is given to 100 people and 20% die, then no one should be given the medicine, especially if they are not sick to begin with. Religion is unnecessary and harms a substantial number of the people it touches. So what if it helps some people? There are safe alternatives to religion.
i dont recall taoism, or satanism (for sensational reasons) being involved in change by a kind of power over others. and islam isnt. the only hiarchy in islam is you, your level of greed basicly! and god. the main issue of terrorism is specificly because there is no order in islam for example. i could do whatever the hell i think god will give me pay for. because in islam there is no salvation. after life is dealt with like a supermarket where your life here if youd agree to this is about money
The reason Islam and Christianity can be easily used to justify violence is because there are violent verses in both the Quran and Bible that sound very much like they condone violence (many, like myself, believe they do in fact support or justify violence). Quran: Muhammad:"Oppression is worse than slaughter" Bible: Jesus: "I came to earth not to bring peace but a sword." Regardless of the intent of these verses, they seem to condone violence.
and by the way, again, the christian model influance on your thought.. most religions dont suppose somthing wrong with people to begin with. i know u mean to say that as humans we dont need religion. but thats ur opinion just because u dont believe in a hidden side to reality. and is prefectly valid 100%. because in the case of there being no hidden world, the actual substantial part of religion "heaven and hell and god" wouldnt wiegh to the risk that comes along with them. but ur problem is..
In order to prove that people NEED religion, you would have to show that there are social and emotional problems in countries where religion is absent, problems that don't exist in countries where there is religion. Northern European countries that are agnostic have high standards of living and low violence. Religious countries tend to be the exact opposite. This shows there is no evidence religion is required for a good life. Also, atheists show no more tendencies to unhappiness as anyone else.
first, your assumeing that religion is only those like the self help ones like scietology or something. no man. actually to blow this whole part out of the water, my religion for example assumes that people need it mainly so they dont go to hell! it promisses 0 for this life and actually promisses hardships and testing and things like dieing for it being a good idea.
But it does promise life after death, an ultimate reward for doing good, a meaningful and organized way to live that helps you get along with your others. It is also a way to control you and get you to fight wars to make the local head Muslim rich. Being a part of all of that and being promised an afterlife of reward is very comforting. I believe people belong for the comfort it gives them, the way it helps them take hardship in stride. It can also discourage looking for alternative solutions.
first off, the only days that fighting ever happend in islam, go check urself.. the "local head" WAS ALWAYS POOR.
second, agian sir. somthing that IS UR PORBLEM is thinking all religion is as SICK, STUPID, CONSIPIRING, GOOD FOR NOTHING, HYPOCRACY as your papal bullshit which is exactly what forced ur culutre into being the ones to think up modern secularism and force it on the rest of the world anyway.
please take ur negative experiances to its correct outlet. "christiainity".
Every negative aspect of Christianity exists in Islam and every other religion, sometimes even in a more extreme form. The repressions, narrow-mindedness, religious wars, the wars over religious succession, justification of conquering other countries by spreading the religion, the second class status of religions minorities, rejection of science when it conflicts with the Quran, resistance to moral reformation, etc. History shows Islam did them all. The Caliphates were rich and hypocritical.
that is pure horse shit excuse me sir. and the simplist proff is history and the hosts attitudes themselfs. all your wining about it spirituality and its effect to arm again your sorry western experiance of the inquestions and curdaers and hypocrite popes and tv evaglists. you dont see budests, toaists, muslim, hidu, sikh, scitionlgists and satanists doing any of that shit. and please dont just throw out claims you know nothing of "caliphs and the quran"
Man, get a hold of yourself! I am a religious scholar. I have a degree. I have read extensively on the history of Islam. The history of Islam has much oppression in it. This is in the historical record. Don't shoot the messenger. Please tell me, why do Muslims get so out of sorts when history is mentioned and assume you must be ignorant if you say anything critical of Islam. Why the knee-jerk accusation of ignorance at every legitimate criticism? Its puzzling, are you not taught Muslim history?
We are going in circles because you are artificially introducing a hidden realm. To believe in a hidden realm requires evidence for this realm other than hope and intuition. One would need indirect evidence (like the evidence that planets orbit stars even though we cant directly see them). But no such evidence exists for a hidden realm.
A frame of reference is an assumption stance one begins with. An assumptive stance without evidence. No frame of reference in science should be used at all.
How can we have evidence of a "hidden realm?" We would need indirect evidence since if we had direct evidence, the realm would not be hidden. But indirect evidence has to be evidence that cannot be accounted for in another way. In other words,the evidence has to be some data that could not exit without the hidden realm. No such evidence has ever been given to me in over 30 years of asking. But lots of bogus evidence that could easily be explained as having another cause has been incessant.
first off, no we dont need indirect evidance for a hidden realm alhtough surprisingly now you are willing to accept indirect evidance~
second, neither can be accounted for in anyother way. i was really simple and stright forward and its FACT. "hidden" is relative to our sences. there is no HIDDEN in reality. and since our preceptions are FACTUALLY limited. then to us a hidden realm is always FACTUAL. i dont see how more scientific it can get..
There is nothing that can be said to exists without evidence. And indirect evidence is something that I have always stated is acceptable, why would you insinuate that I have said otherwise? You cant just call something a fact without evidence and say it is "straight forward." You contradict yourself in the arbitrary definitions you give. IF there is "no HIDDEN in reality" how can a "hidden realm" be factual, since evidence must occur in reality. Then you call it scientific? HUH?
yeah i call it scientific, because scientific means "observation proves it" and in the case of a hidden realm. its both observed that it will always be there, because theres always what our sences didt detect and its not because well then if you observed all that means your all observiant and there is no hidden realm which we know is not true and will never be.
thats why science grows doesnt it? where do u think the limit is? i mean, is it not true that even our technologically givin awareness in the end only sroput to inhance our limits?
Of course that is true. But it would be hard to predict where it will take us. most predictions of scientific discoveries in the future have been wrong.
How can something be both hidden and observed? If our sense cant detect it, how do we know it is there? Again, what exactly is your evidence of a "hidden realm"? Science requires observable evidence with the eyes or ears, processed rationally. Since this realm is hidden you would need indirect evidence that is publicly observable and cant be explained by other variables. Do you have this?
do you know you have a stomach in your body? is it according to your sences hidden? yet you do know its there because we observed it otherwise with technology. however ur observation still didnt make it not hidden from the human eye as a fact. same thing to everything else. god for one, is somthing hidden because of our limitations in presception and the fact that we can only detect even with technology what is physicly (as in of this realityies physicly) contactable... cont.
my qeustion now to you is, would a creator be of what his created are made by in the first place hence he even logicly be detectable?
again, think out of the bullshit mangod god being men and light and shit like that you learnt before. im talking about if we were to consider it seriously.
but ofcourse thats somthing your kind wouldnt want to do because of a neurotic (true) paranoya of the logical ramifications of what considering a fair chance for it can mean.
(oh my god which religion, oh my god we'll end up soo horible like whatever bullshit experiance i can generalise on lame grounds with)
I do not understand this response at all. It is hard to meaningfully respond to something so incomprehensible.
Why are you being mean-spirited all of a sudden? Neurotic? I have no fear of anything being true or false. It is arrogant of you to assume you know anything about my feelings at all.
A fair chance? A fair chance for what? Who said science was fair? It may not be fair that there is no evidence for God, but the lack of fairness has no relationship to the odds that god exists.
First, if there is a God, it must be made of SOMETHING, whatever it is, would be detectable if only indirectly. Second, If God is NOT detectable than we could NOT know anything about him. If God existed and wanted to be known and followed, he would make sure to be easily detectable. Why would a God who wants to be known and followed leave no evidence and make himself difficult to detect? IF he can do anything, he can make himself detectable. Either he does not exist or does not care to be known.
SkepticSage: "If God existed and wanted to be known and followed, he would make sure to be easily detectable."
MoooHamMad: He did. He did that when He came to the world as a man called Yah'shua (Jesus). Not only that time but He revealed Himself in different ways according to O.T. It mentions that He filled the place as a thick cloud where the ark of covenant was stored. He appeared as a flame on a bush to Moses. Jacob fought Him as a man for a full day, asking for a blessing.
He appeared as 3 men to Abraham when He announced a son of promise to him & Sarah. He appeared inside an oven to save his 3 messengers when the Babylon king tried to kill those 3 prophets that refused to worship the king. He appeared as a fire column during night when He helped Israel escape Egypt. He appeared as cloud column during the day to also help Israel escape. He spoke (literal words) when He spoke to Adam and to other prophets. Many people through centuries have had similar experiences.
But what are you going to do with all that? You're going to discard it as mere legends or lies. If someone has a real experience with God of supernatural origins and he tell you his story in the most sincere way he could, you will laugh at him and call him liar, crazy, deceiver, etc. If you see a sign in the sky or in the land that could show somehow that God is trying to offer you a message or be in contact, you will immediately bring a "scientific" explanation and discard it as natural causes.
It is not that God doesn't want to contact you and show you that He exists; the problem is that you don't care or want to listen to Him.
You are happy with your Atheism and this quest for evidence of God is not sincere. Your only true purpose is to contradict and prove wrong God-believers because that makes you happy. You merely want to impress your friends that you're smart and win a position as the "wise" one of the group.
Your true purpose is to feed your ego because it makes you feel good. If you would truly want to meet God, detach yourself from that ego, humble yourself and open your mind and you'll see the clear evidence of a God that truly exists.
Your "insight" into atheists is laughable. You are now a mind reader. You believe you can know things that are unknowable and you shit on people who point out that you are thinking irrationally, providing no evidence, and deceiving yourself. Now you are taking the humility of skepticism (knowing that you cannot know) and claiming it is ego. And you take your own hubris in claiming you know and calling it a detachment of ego. Your God belief aggrandizes your intellectual capacities.
I tell the truth too. Religion is a man-made story written by an ancient storyteller. Nothing more. Nothing less.
TheNaxelist 9 months ago
It's like watching a monkey
peregrin666 10 months ago
It's like watching a monkey
peregrin666 10 months ago
you look high. :) they all have the same numbers....one story with six versions
CovenantOfLove 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
You're LYING. NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT CONDONE SLAVERY! NEVER... You are talking about descriptions of what went on. Also the Hebrew word translated is not slave it is SERVANT. People were under contract (5 yrs) and good work for many, or they stayed with families sometimes voluntarily like members of the family for life. The NT description is different where Christians are slaves. I am a willing slave to God, family, country and career.
.
gotquestions org/Bible-slavery
gmcjetpilot 1 year ago
@gmcjetpilot The bible tells you how you cannot and how you can treat your slaves. It says that Jews can enslave other races but not enslave other Jews (a racist rule). How is that not condoning slavery? This is not a reference to servants, there are bible verses that deal with servants, indentured and otherwise. These quotes are about slavery.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
I'm not a Jew or God, take it up with them. I'm a Christian. The proper translation from the Hebrew is SERVANT not slave. (TRUE!) That will help you see the true context of these days of servitude which are over Biblically. We're in new testament days. With respect suggest these concise clear links; please take time to review, cheers. Google:
youtube com/watch?v=AGHWWg-qpw0
youtube com/watch?v=9OyADoFpr9s
gotquestions org/Bible-slavery
gotquestions org/racism-Bible
gmcjetpilot 1 year ago
@gmcjetpilot You keep evading the obvious fact. If the writers of the bible had wanted to, they could have condemned slavery for the evil it is. Instead they chose to regulate its practice. Clearly the practice is perceived as evil since the Israelis were themselves supposedly enslaved. So why not just bite the bullet and say slavery is evil and no Jew should have slaves? Jesus never mentions slavery. Clearly the bible morally fails to condemn one of the most evil practices imaginable. T
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@gmcjetpilot You keep evading the obvious fact. If the writers of the bible had wanted to, they could have condemned slavery for the evil it is. Instead they chose to regulate its practice. Clearly the practice is perceived as evil since the Israelis were themselves supposedly enslaved. So why not just bite the bullet and say slavery is evil and no Jew should have slaves? Jesus never mentions slavery. Clearly the bible morally fails to condemn one of the most evil practices imaginable.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
That's different. The Bible does NOT condemn "slavery", true! Bible doesn't approve it either. I'm not a Jew living in Old Testament days, Amen. Christians were "slaves". Jesus has words about Christians being good "slave" (servant) to their master. I'm a willing loving slave to my wife and kids. I'm a slave to my employer. Servant to God. Slavery isn't bad in that context. FORCED kidnapping imprisonment of Blacks 1619 - 1789, clearly immoral. There's no approval of that in Bible?
gmcjetpilot 1 year ago
@gmcjetpilot If the bible is the supposed perfect word of a perfect loving god, why is one of the worst crimes imaginable not resoundingly condemned? To attempt to regulate something evil rather than abolish it, you, in effect, justify its existence. No amount of playing with the word slave changes the fact that Christians have a history of condoning slavery using the bible as "evidence." Why did your omniscient god not foresee the inevitable evil use of his words? Slavery is always evil.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
Muslims take land & woman (slaves) as war booty. Muslims enslaved Blacks 1000 yrs before Black slavery in America. Do Christians practice slavery? No. Muslims? Yes slavery, human trafficking exist today in Islam. Your concern is misplaced. Help save little girls & woman from being abused in Islamic countries today. People accused of adultery or homosexuality are executed. Saudi Arabia executes 40 times USA's capital deaths. The Jesus, Christians & the Bible is not a threat.
gmcjetpilot 1 year ago
@gmcjetpilot Christians have traditionally practiced slavery in Europe from Rome to the slave trade of the 1800s. Everyone practiced slavery in the ancient world. But yes, you make a very good point about S.A. However, that does not mean that we should rest on our laurels in the west. Fundamentalist Christianity is a threat to my rights personally, so you will excuse me if I am more concerned with it. Many Moderate Christians are unwilling to condemn it robustly and even at times defend it.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
I think that's Sablechicken. A totally braindead, vaccuous life form on this planet. Skepticsage, you won't get to her. She's beyond 'saving'.
Domzdream 1 year ago
The problem with Atheists is that they have a fundamentally different God in mind than Christians do, that is also why atheists such as yourself make false assertions about Christianity in general. Going to Church wont make you a good Christian, nor does it make you a believer It would be far to ignorant to assume such a thing. Being Christian requires work, hard work, reading the Bible once or twice is a joke, read it 20 times and I promise you your superficial view will change entirely.
steelcatena 1 year ago
@steelcatena Your statements have nothing to do with anything I have said. If you listen better you will realize that I AM discussing the biblical/Quranic god, not some god I made up. There is probably a definition of god that has the possibility of existing, but this god would be so far afield from the Christian God that Christians would scarcely recognize him as a god at all, let alone see him as Yahweh. I don't need to read a flat earth theory multiple times to know its is bunk.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@steelcatena
Nope. To be labelled a christian requires only one thing. To believe in jesus and to accept as your savior. You can be Jack the ripper, and still get into heaven. This says so in the bible (the requirements).
But what's a bummer for you christians is that your god will be choosing randomly people to get into heaven. Randomly. Regardless wether they are absolved of their sins. Again, it says so in the bible.
Nervous?
Domzdream 1 year ago
No I was pointing out the 2+2 always equal four. Hydrogen and oxygen of a certain number make a stable water molecule. The laws of nature are constant.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
In my field of psychology, race is considered a cultural concept, not a biological one. And yet it would be hard to explain how dark skin or blond hair are not biological. It is a controversy.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
I have never seen any physicist who claims intuition was anythign but a place to get ideas, clearly intuition does not give us truth. Intuition gives us vague information about ourselves. In fact, physicists frequently talk about how physics concepts are counter-intuitive.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
No I am talking about basic truths of science. Gravity does not just suddenly become a repelling force. I have no faith about this. It is a fact with a lot of evidence to support it, and so I acknowledge it. The complete removal of heat creates the lowest temperature possible- absolute zero. The fastest any object can go is the speed of light- an absolute.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Your idea that faith is involved in all belief is doubtful. Believing that the sun will come up tomorrow is not faith, it is knowledge of the sun and earth and astronomy. Believing in a god that cannot be seen or has no evidence for his existence is clearly another kind of belief. What cant you just admit this obvious fact?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Your equating of everyone as equally moral and evil is doubtful and overly simplistic. In Lebanon, Iraq, Thailand, China, and multiple other countries there is sectarian violence between Muslims and others or between Muslims themselves. The vast majority of religious violence on this planet current involves Muslims. How would you explain this?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
String theorists mostly agree with Dawkins in that they see no metaphysical implications related to string theory. When quantum theory was all the rage in the popular press about 30-40 years ago, there were multiple metaphysical books that tried to relate the theory to metaphysics and even religion (e.g "The Tao of Physics"). Physicists claimed these ideas were based on either a misunderstanding of physics or wild vague speculation. What do you think?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
You are correct in saying one thing. This si what it means to YOU. There is nothing about current scientific thinking that leads SCIENTISTS to the same conclusions. Why must there be a universal mind? Why cant the universe around us be devoid of entity despite ourselves or other intelligent animals? Why the tendency to want the universe to have some kind of entity associated with it? What would it mean to you and others if the universe were non-conscious.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Sage.
about your statement the Quran is homophobic because it states that homosexual relationships are wrong??
As I recall from the elementary school, to be phobic of something is to be afraid of that. Tell me, how can someone be homophobic if someone thinks that homo sexual relationship is wrong?....Very illogical, don't you think?
Atilla3 2 years ago
Its seems illogical because you did not stop to think about it. Words don't have meaning based on their constituent parts, but based on how they are used. Homophobia is a fear or hatred of homosexuality or homosexuals, including the belief that it is morally inferior. Sura 4.21 says " And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both" This says that gay sex is wrong, and gay men deserve to be hurt. Imagine if a holy book said "if they become Muslims, hurt them." Isn't this immoral?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Sage.
What do you mean with anti-semitic? And in what way is Quran anti-semitic?
Atilla3 2 years ago
Your joking right. The Koran is filled with anti-Jewish statements. Example in Chapter 5: 60-64 Jewish people are cursed by Allah who is angry with them and compares them to apes and pigs. It is amazing that we are still discussing this. Both the new and old testaments and most other holy books claim to have absolute truth which is unique. This implies other religions are wrong or mistaken. This deems others inferior of belief because they do not have your belief. How is that not prejudiced?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Demongithara,
It's really nice to see someone who has not become atheist because of some personal reasons or because of anti-religious feelings.
That is like our shrink Mr. Sage, who claims to be atheist, who is NOT anti-religious because of his sexual orientation, who does NOT generalize people in a group. His atheism is only that he does not believe in God... I think even that is because of personal reasons rather then logical.
Atilla3 2 years ago
Sorry guy. But some of us beleive this that we wish were false, make us uncomfortable, and may even at times be a burden. Facing the awful truth is a matter of integrity for some of us. The question is whether you beleive in believing based on faith. I obviously do not.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
No it does not take faith to beleive anything. It only takes a few obvious assumptions to beleive in scientific evidence. (e.g. The assumption that the universe does not change its laws). Scientific and religious beliefs are not equal- science is clearly superior in that it is based on evidence not faith. "Changing reality" (as you say) from what is true to what is false means humans are attempting to solve problems with incorrect information, this is why so many problems remain unsolved.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Skeptic..
about science being superior to religious belief since it's based on evidence and not faith. My religious faith is based on evidence and if it would have "1" thing that is 100% water proof contradiction then I would not follow it. The same goes for my scientific beliefs. For some reason you think that scientific belief is only based on evidence while religious belief is not?
Atilla3 2 years ago
Yes, it is obvious to anyone who is honest that science is based on evidence and religion is not. Almost, all religious arguments were debunked along time ago, EXCEPT AMONG THE RELIGIOUS. When I hear religious arguments now, they are all ones I have heard before, and there logical flaws are obvious. If you do not see the contradictions in God belief, I do not know what to tell you. Also, lack of belief in god is not only based on contradictions.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
It is amazing that you believe you are making no assumptions when you beleive in a man's claims that he talked to a space-daddy in the sky. And then you claim scientific experiments supposedly are based on assumption when their whole point is to test for truth and assume nothing. You live in a strange world.
SkepticSage 2 years ago 2
@Atilla3
What is this illustrious 100% proof of your brand of god in question? Enlighten me if you will.
Domzdream 1 year ago
My mistake, we are all the same human race what I meant to say was ethnicity and skin color.
However my point was that humans have the ability of grouping even, a useless thing like last name has a facebook community.
This is for everybody who says that "all evil is because of religion" an "the violence would not exist if there where no religions". So religion is not to be blamed its humans.
Atilla3 2 years ago
But if a religion does not prevent violence and even encourages it, it has failed.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Sage.
If religion encourages violence like you say it does then every single religious person would be violent.
I can tell when a person is prejudge mental, a typical behavior is to generalize. I know you say your a shrink but it's easy to see the fault in others rather then in your self. So I think you need to go to a shrink.
Atilla3 2 years ago
I never say that all Muslims are violent and I am a shrink.
If your a Muslim you must beleive Muhammad's violence was justified. If you're Jewish, you believe the genocide in the old testament was justified. Being violent does not require hurting others, it only requires that you agree with the policy of hurting others, support an organization that hurts others or encourages hurting others, or being silent when others are hurt. Some Jews/Muslims don't beleive this, they're called heretics.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Demongithara
You seem to be on to something interesting when you refer write "one faith vs another". However it's not the whole truth, if you widen the scope, then you will see that it has nothing to do with religion.
The territoriality is a part of life, if it's not Religion then its Race, Country, City, Neighborhood, Families and anything that can be grouped. My religious faith is and should be something that concerns only me and my God. Sure we can have dialogs but it should be just dialogs
Atilla3 2 years ago
Sceptic
As for Richards comments in the audio, I would actually give it a try if he didn't seem to be so anti-religion rather then being objective.
You say "accurate attributes of God". Some of the "attributes" that fell into my ears was "homophobic" and "racist".
Personally I haven't read the Bible, but as for the Quran I can say that those attributes are not correct.
Atilla3 2 years ago
Being anti-religious IS being objective since religion is belief without evidence and objectivity means to believe because of evidence.
If the Koran says that homosexual relationships are wrong, it is homophobic by definition. The Koran is filled with anti-Semitic statements.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Homophobic Suras in the Koran. I would print them all but there is not enough space.
Koran 4.21
And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate.
Koran 27:55
Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather
than Women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!
Yet there are other scholars that say that the Koran promises young boys for sexual purposes when a person enters heaven.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Subscribed!!
bananabread119 2 years ago
I think she made the faces because she doesn't know what the words mean lol
3rdeyewildopen 2 years ago 9
i think your right
sulthus 2 years ago
I agree to most of your points. However, islam is not as hypocritical as you present is here. Most muslims know very well about the violent stuff in their scripture and they follow those ideals.
freedom3001 2 years ago
I am not so sure, but clearly I have no way of knowing. It seems to me that if most Muslims followed their Holy book (and this goes for Christians and Jews as well) there would be much more violence. it is amazing that some people read the violent parts of the Quran to justify there behavior but miss the peaceful parts. Then there are others who practice the peaceful parts and ignore the violent parts. Human being capacity for denial never ceases to amaze me.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
You can find a lot of Christians who (hypocritically) will reject bad things in the Bible, but based on my experience with muslims (I grew up among a lot of them), they have a fear of rejecting anything written in their scriptures. They'd rather find some way of defending it.
But there also IS a lot more violence in muslim societies, so it doesn't really contradict your argument.
freedom3001 2 years ago
In interesting perception and consistent with what I have read.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Freedom3001
The fact that you have lived among Muslims does not implicate that you have understood them. And your statement clearly proofs it. The best way to understand is to debate,but then you need to have a good knowledge on the subject and on human behavior to draw conclusion,which you seem to lack
And which statistics do you refer to when you say that there are more violence in Muslim societies?
Your comentS seems to be Christian friendly and anti-Muslim maybe its because your Christian
Atilla3 2 years ago
Skeptic
Why would Muslims be more violent if they follow Quran? More specifically what exactly does Quran encourage in the form of violent behavior.
What strikes me is the fact that people love the "karma" theory where life punishes you if you where bad, but everybody flips as soon as a book mentions that God will punish you if you where bad. Reward-Punish is a part of the nature of life.
Atilla3 2 years ago
Skeptic
1) As for those Muslims who choose to do bad, they are no more different then a person without a religious faith who has a clearly knowledge about the basics of what is good/bad but still chooses to do the bad thing.
Atilla3 2 years ago
2) My personal understanding is that most of todays violence in Muslim society would be erased if people where more educated. And any Muslim that does not educate him/her self in science etc. is not truly a Muslim. Because one of the important concepts of Quran is education and science. In many cases just to understand it you have to have a knowledge of science.
Also lets not forget that Saddams and Usamas where created and supported by USA for their dirty works.
Atilla3 2 years ago
Please give me even one example of where the Koran mentions the necessity of science.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Yes but if a non religious person does evil, he does not do it in the name of his disbelief. Terrorists frequently kill IN THE NAME of Islam. There is a difference.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
she wont even listen shes soooooo mad , i bet she is an agry hateful person anyhow , good riddens!!!!!
lynette1953 2 years ago
The response video of the woman was hilarious. It was like she wasn't taking a word in and was only hearing the insults.
She picks up a book called "The GOD Delusion" and she expected a science lesson? I don't really want to say it, but I honestly feel bad for people like this. I don't want to look down on anyone, but it's sad to see how people are so close-minded to different ideas.
Mequellios 2 years ago
People who listen to Dawkins think he has this rule of infallibility or something and he has a monopoly on the facts. Bum rap? He has this fanatic following of mostly young college kids that he preachs his fundemantism too. It's like he is trying to put together this "Enlightened" movement. Bum rap? That couldn't be further from the truth.
Oliver1456 2 years ago
The bum wrap I speak of is in reference to the video in question that my above video is in response to. My video has nothing to do with how he may act in other settings. Also, the reaction of conservative Christians and others to Dawkins has been equally absurd and I say so. There is nothing about whether those who follow him are getting a bum wrap, I never mention it at all.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins gets a bum rap? I did a video several months ago on Dawkins. Nothing about religion. I did it on a quote out of Joseph LeDoux book, "The Synapic Self" LeDoux wrote about how Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, and Steven Pinker were all wrong on how they believed mind and behaviour are inherited. So, I spoke in the video on how Dawkins was wrong and I got 1 star and people insulted me. Saying, how I could say this about such a brilliant man, blah, blah... Bad rap my ass.
Oliver1456 2 years ago
The bum wrap I speak of is in reference to the video in question that my above video is in response to. My video has nothing to do with how he may act in other settings. Also, the reaction of conservative Christians and others to Dawkins has been equally absurd and I say so. There is nothing about whether those who follow him are getting a bum wrap, I never mention it at all.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Well, atheism, by the nature of its own self, is a philosophy. It could even be called a religion since its a set of beliefs about "nonbelief".
nerb03 2 years ago
Bullshit. Someone who does not beleive in astrology is not called an aastorlgist. We do not talk about the philosophy of aastrolgy. Atheist have almost nothing in common in their beleifs other than a lack of belief in god. The only reason religious people want to turn atheism into a philosophy and a religion is so they have something to hang false disparaging attributes on. Also, it is a way of trying to artificially make atheism a dogma to artificially level the playing field.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
But the playing field is not equal. Atheists base their beleifs on facts and are skeptics and religious people base their beleifs on myths without any evidence. This makes religions look stupid and makes them pale in comparison. Making atheism a full fledged philosophy or dogma is simply a political propaganda trick to camouflage the irrationality of religion and the rationality of atheism.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
You prefer to dissolve any trace of truth that may expose a side of Atheism that you refuse to see and that you don't want others to notice. Was the truth of my deleted comments too hurtful to your Atheistic pride or are you so driven by hatred towards Christians that you would stop at nothing to push your view on others even if it takes deceit? With this action you have lost all credibility.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
I prefer to delete comments that are redundant, verbose, repetitive, filled with obscenities, are overly mean-spirited, or say the say thing the last 20 persons said. Also, response disappear on youtube all the time, mine disappear before they are even posted sometimes. I have no memory of your posts or deleting them. If they were deleted i will let you figure out what the reason was.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Non one kills in the name of atheism, because there is no philosophy by that name. Hitler called himself a Christian repeatedly and claimed his war was part of Gods plan just like the genocidal wars of the early Jews. Stalin believed in a junk-science theory of history and "class struggle." Irrational ideologies come in secular forms as well as religious and are just as deadly. This does not change the argument that irrationality leads to violence, it supports it.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
There will now be two minutes silence for the death of the Judao-Christian-Islamic God.
smudge6699 2 years ago
paulusmagirl 2 years ago
I will give you credit on one point: Christians do not read the Bible as they should. But, having read it as well as being familiar with Dawkin's book, there are points to be questioned. In fact, opposed to what many think, the word "love" is quoted more in the OT than the NT, although many believe the OT is only the wrathful side of God. You're right, ppl need to read more and listen less. Since Christians are not hurting ppl, why are atheists so hellbent on discrediting them--why care so much?
nerb03 2 years ago
Christians ARE hurting people. They ave been hurting people for centuries, both psychologically and physically including the encouragement and even the carrying out of murder. The current situation is that conservative Christians are the leading cause of low self esteem and self doubt among women, gays, and people of other faiths. Christian condemnation is heard by children and has a profoundly damaging effect.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Absolutely not, where are you getting this from? I can understand that you may bring up the Crusades, which certainly is not a high point in Christianity. But, you speak as though you have research backing up your claims of psychological torment, which simply does not exists. Only because its doctrine antagonizes your own beliefs regarding homosexuality do you say this. What psychological harm does it bestow? There are many other atheists in the world who are against homosexuality as well...
nerb03 2 years ago
Your kidding me, right? Christians teach an unhealthy guilt-ridden morbid preoccupation with sex that leads to sexual hang-ups and dysfunction, they frighten children and adults with threats of hellfire, they stunt the philosophical and spiritual growth by discouraging exploration of other ideas that conflict with Christianity, they demonize others who do not beleive as they do, they encourage, sexism, homophobia, anti-liberalism. Historically they have encouraged war, slavery, antisemitism, etc
SkepticSage 2 years ago
I am not advocating atheism per se, I am advocating scientific humanism with atheism as an attributes. This is the philosophy of most scientists but not all "atheists." Some people call themselves atheists for irrational reasons. I am not referring to those people. I am referring to those with a scientific worldview. I have never heard any such person express homophobic views since such views are inherently irrational and absurd. Homophobia is the result of dogmatic religious thinking.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
SkepticSage: "Christians ARE hurting people. They ave been hurting people for centuries, both psychologically and physically including the encouragement and even the carrying out of murder."
MoooHamMad: You sound like the old Russian secret police and their propaganda methods to demonize Christians and Jews by associating the entire Russian Orthodox Church and their members with negative propaganda.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
The result was a cataclysmic genocide of 30 million Christians. Jews were also killed in huge numbers. Ah, the things Atheists would do now if they were ruling a superpower.
I'm not even counting the global genocides perpetrated by Atheists worldwide. You speak about Christians being evil, murderers, poisonous to society while completely and conveniently ignoring the crimes of those that were not Christian. Atheists are now killing Buddhists in Myanmar, they enslaved all people in N. Korea,etc.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
These genocides you describe were done by secular ideologues, the very people I am condemning. Whether your ideology is a insane belief in a nonexistent god, a magical historical class struggle, or in worshiping a fatherland and its master-race, it amounts to the same thing and has the same result- the murder of billions of people. Current atheist books are written primarily by humanist scientists who believe in democracy and human rights and have never been in control of any government.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
You refer to these facts as "negative propaganda:" The crusades, multiple religious wars, the murder of people who defied or disagreed with the church, and inquisitions. These are facts, propaganda are lies. You really need to look up your data before you write. Criticism based on historical fact is hardly propaganda.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
SkepticSage:The crusades, multiple religious wars, the murder of people who defied or disagreed with the church, and inquisitions. These are facts, propaganda are lies
MoooHamMad:Lenin & Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Russian secret police, KGB, Fidel Castro dictatorship, Sandinistas, Che Guevara, Shining Path,Las Farc, Myanmar's Atheist military dictatorship,etc... Shall I continue? All of them Atheists,all of them perpetrated genocide,all happened during the past 100 years to present.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Now, you cannot deny that these are facts. Propaganda are lies. The same way you associate Crusades and Inquisition with all Christians, I can do exactly the same with genocide perpetrated by Atheists. And the same way you would deny those atrocities are associated with Atheism, I could claim exactly the same for your accusations against Christianity given the fact that NT doesn't command Christians to kill in Christ's name but to do exactly the opposite: to love your enemies and expose evil.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
But you are such a poor scholar that apparently you miss all factors involved in the development of Crusades. Have you ever read and researched the abominable atrocities Muslims perpetrated in Europe during the almost 400 years of conquest. Have you ever heard about the 24,000 Castilians that were beheaded by Moors because they refused to embrace Islam? There you go, I already offered you one factor among many that leads people to rise up in arms against an oppressor, in this case the Crusades.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Am I denying that there were political and economical factors involved in the Crusades, be them positive or negative? No, in no way I'm saying that. Vatican also had interests in power while people had other interests like reclaiming back their heritage, history and sense of being. For example, do you know what led to the formation of Knight Templars? Muslims in Europe used to hide and ambush travelers, caravans and pilgrims, rape women and take them to their harem and to enslave "infidels".
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
The abuse was so great that a group of highly skilled people in the arts of war of the elite used their own wealth to create what was called the Knights Templar. The founder was Hugues de Paynes and 8 more knights from France. They began patrolling roads and protect the innocent and yes, they were Christians.
Saladin was terrified of them and this fear propagated among Muslims and they eventually ceased their attacks on caravans and pilgrims. This is just a scratch into the annals of history.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
There were 9 Crusades & the inspiration of this movement was truly noble. The final Crusades lost purpose & turned into wars between kingdoms that were previously allies & sadly horrible crimes were perpetrated at the end, not for Christ but for power. That is the only part of the Crusades that you look at to judge all of it based on that. Every war has casualties and the worst the enemy, the more casualties. How many people died to defeat Hitler? 55 million people. That's the price of freedom.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
How many Christians, Jews, and Buddhists were killed by Atheists before Atheists could realize that they cannot possibly destroy people's faiths and beliefs? It took 300 million innocent lives before Atheists decided to cease and desist their genocidal campaign. Now in the present, places like Russia and China have the largest growth of Christian communities in the entire globe; a lesson to learn: "the powers that be" can destroy the human body but will never be able to destroy the human spirit.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Yes, the dogma of communism has proved as deadly as the dogmas of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In fact the persecutions of Christians and others in communist countries is patterned after oppression religious people visited upon others and each other in the past and currently. Makes one almost beleive in karma, LOL. The conclusion? Ideology kills. Modern atheists are scientists not communists or ideologist of any kind. They are skeptics who reject all ideology and embrace science.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Genocides were not committed in the name of atheism but in the name of the dogmas of communism and fascism which no skeptical scientist would beleive. Communism and fascism are dogmas like Christianity and have had the same effect on people. They get people doing things they would not normally do by getting them to do evil while thinking they are doing right.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
This is an argument that has been debunked years ago. Where have you been? Modern atheist are scientists. The "atheist" you mention believed in dogmas. Just because someone is an "atheist" does not mean they are rational, skeptical, or non dogmatic. One can be a dogmatic zealot without god, Communism and fascism are examples. Modern atheism is about the rejection of ALL dogmas and myths. Communism is a myth and myths kill. Communism is more like a religion than a scientific theory.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
nerb03
There are many stories, some of which have made national news in the US, where religious communities have persecuted atheists to the degree where they have been fired from their jobs, forced to leave rented accommodation and forced to leave their schools. Ostracized by their neighbours, often with physical attacks on them and their property. Is this what Jesus would do? Please don't show your ignorance of the fact that so-called christians are guilty of hurting others. They do . - today
draagon66 2 years ago
What you are doing draagon66 is taking what few of the "Christians" do and assimilate it to all of us. You are correct in that some Christians do such things, but such news is what the media covers--bad news. Research has shown that ppl prefer to hear bad news, as counter intuitive as it seems. You never hear of the good things that Christians do or that come from Christianity. It is simply unfair that such assumptions are made.
nerb03 2 years ago
I would also like to add that this is eerily similiar to the examples given my Skeptic, regarding homosexuality, drugs, and promiscuity. Some ppl simply do not understand regardless of or due to their differences.
nerb03 2 years ago
It is familiar because you do not understand the difference, that being something called truth, derived from science and logic. Religious people think truth is derived from intuition and revelation. They beleive this in order to justify belief in things that are untrue but console them (e.g. Christianity). If you hear their defaming condemnations of gays, you will hear no facts. My critique of Christianity is based on facts. As they say "its the facts stupid." Your comparison is specious.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
No, in fact, I go out of my way and describe what is common amongst Christianity though no universal amongst Christians. Again, I say so in the video. Your amking the assumption that if the NUMBER of good events outnumbers the number of bad events that this is unfair. Imagine I told you that the Holocaust is an unfair thing to focus on because it detracts from all the good things the Nazis did like hospitals, highways, and creating millions of Jobs. Wouldn't you be astonished? I am with you.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Hatred and fear of gays, suggesting women should keep to minimal roles in life, condemnation of free love, and ignoring the sociopathic amorality of big businessmen who fill their collection plates, is done by MANY Christians, not a few. Until very recently, racism was commonly added to the sexist, homophobic brew. This kind of thinking and preaching is commonplace and not unusual. Christians routinely teach bigotry to their parishioners and children creating hatred in society.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
I typically admire someone who has a set of beliefs that they hold on to. It says alot about one's character. But, Skeptic, it seems as if you wish to annihiliate anyone's position different from your own, specifically Christians. You don't WANT them to be right, it seems, because that would mean you are accountable for something (sin). People do not like accountablility because it places emphasis on some aspect of their behavior, expected or otherwise. This is why liberalism strives.
nerb03 2 years ago
Now, having said that and KNOWING that you will give a response such as "a lack of evidence" or "how overly simplified my rebuttal was", etc., I also know that nothing short of God Himself coming down to say "Hello" are you going to admit the possibility of His existence. So, why do I continue to discuss things with you? Because I'm tenacious, and I even look forward from your responses, regardless of my disagreeance. Everything, however, does not revolve around homosexuality, Skeptic.
nerb03 2 years ago
Why should I not require a god to show himself to beleive? Is not his absence evidence against his existence? When did I ever say that everything is based on being gay? But then again, gay rights are a convenient litmus test for a person's integrity. If one can, as a heterosexual, agree to equal rights to people whose behavior is repulsive and immoral to you, you clearly are ready to accept the equal rights of everyone. If someone does not except the equal rights of gays, they are a hypocrite.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Holding onto beleifs without evidence is not a sign of character strength but weakness, a cowardly fear of living without absolutes. I wish to counter all positions based on nothing or falsehoods, because they have had a statistically high incidence of being associated with folly, oppression, and even violence. Liberalism makes people think for themselves and thus makes them responsible and accountable. Christians give their decisions over to religious authorities and abdicate responsibility.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Well, I have some stories of my own. In the early 80's, some miners were blasting out a sidewall to make a road near my home town. During one blast, the words "SEE GOD IN" were perfectly protruded to the extent that it was in the papers. Surely you wouldn't want to desribe the statistics of randomly occurence, or say it was a case of group hypnosis/hallucination? Could it be possible that this was a sign? Absolutely. Beyond reasonable doubt, this was no random inncident.
nerb03 2 years ago
What is it about coincidence that you do not understand? If you sit on your back and look up at clouds, you eventually will see within about an hour a cloud that looks just like something in a most uncanny and spooky way. Our brain is made to scan the environment and look for familiar patterns. There are blasts daily all over the planet with debris dispersal occurring randomly. Eventually such blasts have the same effect as clouds, eventually you see something. We see what we want to see.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Coincidence? You must be kidding, Skeptic. We do see things in clouds, but this is not a good analogy because of the different psychological (and physical) processes taking place. Firstly, the brain "finishes" the scanned image of the cloud to a fixed representation of a known object, assimilating it to a familiar shape (a boat, perhaps). The clouds movement is also a variable that differentiates this among my blasting example a fixed object which does not move.
nerb03 2 years ago
Even on fixed objects, the brain reads things differently depending on the degree it works to make sense of them (regarding random shapes, etc.) For example, by reading this text the striate cortex recognizes the high frequencies of the letters, as opposed to lower frequency images such as clouds. The degree of the blasting example I gave requires high frequency input read by the striate cortex, as opposed to "randomness" that you assume I mean, or by the cloud example.
nerb03 2 years ago
The neurophysiology of perception is much more complicated than you are giving credit to. Recognition depends on the cell, stream of analysis, as well as many other variables for one to make such conjecture or simplistic analogy.
nerb03 2 years ago
Your trying to explain neurophysiology to a psychologist. LOL! One truism that is agreed on in the field is the tendency of humans to misperceive. It underlies mental illness and dysfunctionality, religion being an example. People see what they want to see and more importantly, they overlook coincidences. If you get enough random patterns in front of you, some will look like familiar things. Our brains scan for things to confirm our beleifs. Christians see Christ, Buddhists see Buddha.
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Yes I am. I do so because there are differences in the explanation that you and I give for the phenomenon. I am also a psychologist, and was formerly head over a neurophysiology lab, so yes, I have the credentials to do so. In addition, there are differences in seeing something physical which can be defined compared to that which is being percieved as something recongnizable to the biased eye. Take the dalmation picture, for example, or most any optical illusion--different than words on a page.
nerb03 2 years ago
Are you familiar with Dr. Mario Beauregard?
nerb03 2 years ago
What does this have to do with the existence of mythological beings like Yahweh?
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Did it ever occur to you that this experience was a mirage and the result of your condition? You heard what you wanted to hear. How is your hallucination evidence of anything? You choose to take an experience and interpret it as real in an act of faith. Why not look at all the possible hypotheses of what caused your experience other than a visitation. The reason you chose not to is emotional, not logical. You want it to be true so badly that you are willing to abdicate reason.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
Today I'm 35 years old & the healing is still there. I know that God permanently healed me that day, 21 years ago & sometimes I think it's related to the constant daily prayer of my mother, asking God to intercede on my behalf. I remember that in the Gospel, Jesus told his disciples to pray frequently and that eventually His Father would respond. You could ask me, why God doesn't answer all people that pray with the same level of faith? My answer is 'I don't know', but I do know that God exists.
MoooHamMad 3 years ago
MoooHamMad
I just don't understand why your god would take a personal interest in you but is ignoring all those around the world who are suffering and dying.
Why you and not the thousands that were killed in 9/11?
Why you and not the millions killed by Nazi Germany?
Prayer is proven useless and unexpected recovery from illness is commonplace.
Get over it and grow up.
draagon66 2 years ago
I was an atheist before I read the God Delusion, I just didn't know it.
I thought I was the only one that saw the outright hatefulness in the bible, the book gave me the courage to admit that I was an atheist when somebody asks what my beliefs are.
The sad thing is, I still feel contaminated by my indoctrination, I still feel the intellectual laziness forced upon me. Fuck the Watchtower Society.
TheRedneckAtheist 3 years ago
lol the girl listening to the book looks like she's being repeataly punched at the begining of chapter 2 XD
taccun 3 years ago
That chick is CRAZY.
AntitheisticAtheist 3 years ago
great video. i like the way each true adjective of god hit that lady like a bullet. if you ask me, christians and all other theists cant handle the truth
slimjimhoff 3 years ago
Well, maybe it is funny (not my humour), but this woman hasn't got ANY constructive or confincing reaction to Dawkin's questions and verbale attacks. And, in my opinion, no religion has.
dawkinschannel 3 years ago
Hahahaaha that woman is so very funny.
AcousticTyGuy 3 years ago
i can see God when i see Arabs and Israelis make peace, when rich humble themselves to the poor, when religious leaders start to work in a decent way, When i see no hunger in Africa, when i see super powers behave, when i see Muslims abandoned swords,when Christians stop minding fathers, persists, when Jews stop racism, and when politicians became clean
mashaallah58 3 years ago
If the above examples are the only time you can "see" God, then clearly you have never seen him and will probably never see him. But I guess that was your point.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
guys seriously. just a simple question.
on one hand you dont like god intervining and think it would be lame and make the world an alice in wonderland place. and on the other hand when he reduces to just giving his advice, then US FUCKERS like the privilages he gets and play around with it, make so much diffrent variations... you blame him! and even more fucked up, if he says what anyone would say "get rid of the fuckers playing around with the idea" you say "what a fucked up god!"god ur hard!
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
When did anyone say they did not want God to intervene? What we said is there IS no god to intervene. God does not give advice because he isn't there to give it. People (prophets) give advice while claiming their advice comes from God. They do this to sell their ideas so they can gain power and influence. You seem to be saying that our demands of god are unreasonable. But we demand nothing since there is no one to demand it from. How can we be unreasonable to a god that does not exist?
SkepticSage 3 years ago
i wasnt talking about your comment. i was talking about mashaallahs interesting exchange of "la la land" then we believe in god.. suggestion.
as for your purely subjective opinion about god, your right! if god doesnt exist, then he never sent advice or anything. but i was talking pritty clearly about if he did exist and a religion out there was his message.
and dont force ur position because i can equally be unconstructive by saying "how can i be reasonable to an athiest when god does exist!"
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
I am not forcing anything on anyone. I am just saying that it is dangerous to start saying what it is that some hypothetical daddy in the sky wants. It is easy to control naive and gullible people by saying stuff like that. The problem with your last statement is that it assumes that God existing has as much likelihood of being true as his non-existence. That is rubbish. If god exists, where is the evidence? Things that are likely to exist have evidence. Our contentions are not equally valid.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
1. i didnt say you are forcing anything.. i said ur argument style is.
2. "hypothetical DADDY" is not nessesaryly what religion is claiming to deal with.
3. its easy to control niave and gullible people in sooo much other ways too! so, even if god does exist in anyway or form, fuck him for our own stupidity?
4.actually no they are, cause "where is the evidance he doesnt".. the only things u claim support that are arguments that apply to a specific vision of "god". and not just "god".
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
1. I do not understadn how my style "forces" anything. Your meaning is not clear. 2. I was not saying that religions claim to have a hypothetical daddy in the sky, I meant that that is what it amounts to psychologically. We can create complex religious systems of some sophistication. This does not change the fact that our beleifs are based on fear rather than reasoning and scientific evidence. We want a relationship with a protecting agent to sooth our fear much like a child wants with a parent.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
3. True, however, religion is clearly created to change people's behavior. This is true whether the religion is true or not. What do you mean by "fuck him for our own stupidity"? Again your meaning is not clear. 4. My arguments do not only apply to one specific definition of God. They apply to all definitions that are based on no evidence. I've seen no evidence for any definition of God. There is no evidence for unicorns either yet no one takes them seriously. Why a different standard for God?
SkepticSage 3 years ago
3. nope not all. and did you know there are actually religions that have no deities to begin with? "fuck him for our own stupidity" means the responce u guys are advocating. that since most religion using people use it for wrong, then to hell with it even if its possible that one of them actually can benifit those who will use it for real good and gain.
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
What do non-theistic religions have to do with anything? I've studied most religions and all involve changing people's behavior and putting people in some kind of power over others. Islam is a good example. If a medicine is given to 100 people and 20% die, then no one should be given the medicine, especially if they are not sick to begin with. Religion is unnecessary and harms a substantial number of the people it touches. So what if it helps some people? There are safe alternatives to religion.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
i dont recall taoism, or satanism (for sensational reasons) being involved in change by a kind of power over others. and islam isnt. the only hiarchy in islam is you, your level of greed basicly! and god. the main issue of terrorism is specificly because there is no order in islam for example. i could do whatever the hell i think god will give me pay for. because in islam there is no salvation. after life is dealt with like a supermarket where your life here if youd agree to this is about money
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
The Calafate bureaucracy was a hierarchy.
The reason Islam and Christianity can be easily used to justify violence is because there are violent verses in both the Quran and Bible that sound very much like they condone violence (many, like myself, believe they do in fact support or justify violence). Quran: Muhammad:"Oppression is worse than slaughter" Bible: Jesus: "I came to earth not to bring peace but a sword." Regardless of the intent of these verses, they seem to condone violence.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
and by the way, again, the christian model influance on your thought.. most religions dont suppose somthing wrong with people to begin with. i know u mean to say that as humans we dont need religion. but thats ur opinion just because u dont believe in a hidden side to reality. and is prefectly valid 100%. because in the case of there being no hidden world, the actual substantial part of religion "heaven and hell and god" wouldnt wiegh to the risk that comes along with them. but ur problem is..
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
In order to prove that people NEED religion, you would have to show that there are social and emotional problems in countries where religion is absent, problems that don't exist in countries where there is religion. Northern European countries that are agnostic have high standards of living and low violence. Religious countries tend to be the exact opposite. This shows there is no evidence religion is required for a good life. Also, atheists show no more tendencies to unhappiness as anyone else.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
first, your assumeing that religion is only those like the self help ones like scietology or something. no man. actually to blow this whole part out of the water, my religion for example assumes that people need it mainly so they dont go to hell! it promisses 0 for this life and actually promisses hardships and testing and things like dieing for it being a good idea.
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
But it does promise life after death, an ultimate reward for doing good, a meaningful and organized way to live that helps you get along with your others. It is also a way to control you and get you to fight wars to make the local head Muslim rich. Being a part of all of that and being promised an afterlife of reward is very comforting. I believe people belong for the comfort it gives them, the way it helps them take hardship in stride. It can also discourage looking for alternative solutions.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
first off, the only days that fighting ever happend in islam, go check urself.. the "local head" WAS ALWAYS POOR.
second, agian sir. somthing that IS UR PORBLEM is thinking all religion is as SICK, STUPID, CONSIPIRING, GOOD FOR NOTHING, HYPOCRACY as your papal bullshit which is exactly what forced ur culutre into being the ones to think up modern secularism and force it on the rest of the world anyway.
please take ur negative experiances to its correct outlet. "christiainity".
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
Every negative aspect of Christianity exists in Islam and every other religion, sometimes even in a more extreme form. The repressions, narrow-mindedness, religious wars, the wars over religious succession, justification of conquering other countries by spreading the religion, the second class status of religions minorities, rejection of science when it conflicts with the Quran, resistance to moral reformation, etc. History shows Islam did them all. The Caliphates were rich and hypocritical.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
as for every negative aspect of chist...
that is pure horse shit excuse me sir. and the simplist proff is history and the hosts attitudes themselfs. all your wining about it spirituality and its effect to arm again your sorry western experiance of the inquestions and curdaers and hypocrite popes and tv evaglists. you dont see budests, toaists, muslim, hidu, sikh, scitionlgists and satanists doing any of that shit. and please dont just throw out claims you know nothing of "caliphs and the quran"
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
Man, get a hold of yourself! I am a religious scholar. I have a degree. I have read extensively on the history of Islam. The history of Islam has much oppression in it. This is in the historical record. Don't shoot the messenger. Please tell me, why do Muslims get so out of sorts when history is mentioned and assume you must be ignorant if you say anything critical of Islam. Why the knee-jerk accusation of ignorance at every legitimate criticism? Its puzzling, are you not taught Muslim history?
SkepticSage 3 years ago
that if you do come from a stance of seeing substance to the possiblity because u believe in a hidden world. your position would be diffrent.
and a great example to demonstrate this is see my responce to "there are safe alterna.."
= if reality ended at death yeah, if not then no!
we are going i think in circles and its because the argument cant work. cause we are both valid had the other held the others frame of reference.
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
We are going in circles because you are artificially introducing a hidden realm. To believe in a hidden realm requires evidence for this realm other than hope and intuition. One would need indirect evidence (like the evidence that planets orbit stars even though we cant directly see them). But no such evidence exists for a hidden realm.
A frame of reference is an assumption stance one begins with. An assumptive stance without evidence. No frame of reference in science should be used at all.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
really? so if i do bring your attention to evidance of a hidden realm youll believe?
ok.. are our preceptions limited and will they ever reach fullness?
get back to me on that will you/
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
How can we have evidence of a "hidden realm?" We would need indirect evidence since if we had direct evidence, the realm would not be hidden. But indirect evidence has to be evidence that cannot be accounted for in another way. In other words,the evidence has to be some data that could not exit without the hidden realm. No such evidence has ever been given to me in over 30 years of asking. But lots of bogus evidence that could easily be explained as having another cause has been incessant.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
first off, no we dont need indirect evidance for a hidden realm alhtough surprisingly now you are willing to accept indirect evidance~
second, neither can be accounted for in anyother way. i was really simple and stright forward and its FACT. "hidden" is relative to our sences. there is no HIDDEN in reality. and since our preceptions are FACTUALLY limited. then to us a hidden realm is always FACTUAL. i dont see how more scientific it can get..
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
There is nothing that can be said to exists without evidence. And indirect evidence is something that I have always stated is acceptable, why would you insinuate that I have said otherwise? You cant just call something a fact without evidence and say it is "straight forward." You contradict yourself in the arbitrary definitions you give. IF there is "no HIDDEN in reality" how can a "hidden realm" be factual, since evidence must occur in reality. Then you call it scientific? HUH?
SkepticSage 3 years ago
yeah i call it scientific, because scientific means "observation proves it" and in the case of a hidden realm. its both observed that it will always be there, because theres always what our sences didt detect and its not because well then if you observed all that means your all observiant and there is no hidden realm which we know is not true and will never be.
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
thats why science grows doesnt it? where do u think the limit is? i mean, is it not true that even our technologically givin awareness in the end only sroput to inhance our limits?
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
Of course that is true. But it would be hard to predict where it will take us. most predictions of scientific discoveries in the future have been wrong.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
How can something be both hidden and observed? If our sense cant detect it, how do we know it is there? Again, what exactly is your evidence of a "hidden realm"? Science requires observable evidence with the eyes or ears, processed rationally. Since this realm is hidden you would need indirect evidence that is publicly observable and cant be explained by other variables. Do you have this?
SkepticSage 3 years ago
how? ok..
do you know you have a stomach in your body? is it according to your sences hidden? yet you do know its there because we observed it otherwise with technology. however ur observation still didnt make it not hidden from the human eye as a fact. same thing to everything else. god for one, is somthing hidden because of our limitations in presception and the fact that we can only detect even with technology what is physicly (as in of this realityies physicly) contactable... cont.
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
my qeustion now to you is, would a creator be of what his created are made by in the first place hence he even logicly be detectable?
again, think out of the bullshit mangod god being men and light and shit like that you learnt before. im talking about if we were to consider it seriously.
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
but ofcourse thats somthing your kind wouldnt want to do because of a neurotic (true) paranoya of the logical ramifications of what considering a fair chance for it can mean.
(oh my god which religion, oh my god we'll end up soo horible like whatever bullshit experiance i can generalise on lame grounds with)
nogodbutthegod 3 years ago
I do not understand this response at all. It is hard to meaningfully respond to something so incomprehensible.
Why are you being mean-spirited all of a sudden? Neurotic? I have no fear of anything being true or false. It is arrogant of you to assume you know anything about my feelings at all.
A fair chance? A fair chance for what? Who said science was fair? It may not be fair that there is no evidence for God, but the lack of fairness has no relationship to the odds that god exists.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
First, if there is a God, it must be made of SOMETHING, whatever it is, would be detectable if only indirectly. Second, If God is NOT detectable than we could NOT know anything about him. If God existed and wanted to be known and followed, he would make sure to be easily detectable. Why would a God who wants to be known and followed leave no evidence and make himself difficult to detect? IF he can do anything, he can make himself detectable. Either he does not exist or does not care to be known.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
SkepticSage: "If God existed and wanted to be known and followed, he would make sure to be easily detectable."
MoooHamMad: He did. He did that when He came to the world as a man called Yah'shua (Jesus). Not only that time but He revealed Himself in different ways according to O.T. It mentions that He filled the place as a thick cloud where the ark of covenant was stored. He appeared as a flame on a bush to Moses. Jacob fought Him as a man for a full day, asking for a blessing.
MoooHamMad 3 years ago
He appeared as 3 men to Abraham when He announced a son of promise to him & Sarah. He appeared inside an oven to save his 3 messengers when the Babylon king tried to kill those 3 prophets that refused to worship the king. He appeared as a fire column during night when He helped Israel escape Egypt. He appeared as cloud column during the day to also help Israel escape. He spoke (literal words) when He spoke to Adam and to other prophets. Many people through centuries have had similar experiences.
MoooHamMad 3 years ago
But what are you going to do with all that? You're going to discard it as mere legends or lies. If someone has a real experience with God of supernatural origins and he tell you his story in the most sincere way he could, you will laugh at him and call him liar, crazy, deceiver, etc. If you see a sign in the sky or in the land that could show somehow that God is trying to offer you a message or be in contact, you will immediately bring a "scientific" explanation and discard it as natural causes.
MoooHamMad 3 years ago
It is not that God doesn't want to contact you and show you that He exists; the problem is that you don't care or want to listen to Him.
You are happy with your Atheism and this quest for evidence of God is not sincere. Your only true purpose is to contradict and prove wrong God-believers because that makes you happy. You merely want to impress your friends that you're smart and win a position as the "wise" one of the group.
MoooHamMad 3 years ago
Your true purpose is to feed your ego because it makes you feel good. If you would truly want to meet God, detach yourself from that ego, humble yourself and open your mind and you'll see the clear evidence of a God that truly exists.
MoooHamMad 3 years ago
Your "insight" into atheists is laughable. You are now a mind reader. You believe you can know things that are unknowable and you shit on people who point out that you are thinking irrationally, providing no evidence, and deceiving yourself. Now you are taking the humility of skepticism (knowing that you cannot know) and claiming it is ego. And you take your own hubris in claiming you know and calling it a detachment of ego. Your God belief aggrandizes your intellectual capacities.
SkepticSage 3 years ago
It i