Seriously, if we discovered an empty tomb or grave today....would we automatically assume that the corpse had somehow become reanimated and moved elsewhere?
No.
The best explanation would be that someone had moved the body. If someone started to suggest that the corpse might have become a zombie and walked away...then we would want to send him/her to the nearest psychiatric hospital. Yet, the same story allegedly has validity when espoused through religious belief.
Strobel: "We have an empty tomb...that uh everybody in the first century conceded was empty. The question was how did it get empty...and I think the best explanation is the physical resurrection of Jesus."
Me: Uh, No. The best explanation for a corpse to be missing is that some LIVING people moved it....perhaps the apostles who would prefer to perpetuate their religion. The best explanation certainly isn't a story about a zombie.
You: Uh.No I haven't read the book. Don't know what I am talking about, but that won't stop me from ranting about things I am clueless about here on youtube. Yes I am pathetic, but so are most atheists here anyway. *_o
@NorwegianKafir Considering your insinuation that I am ignorant of the Bible...I was a Christian for twenty years and my parents sent me to Christian schools. I am well aware of what is indicated in the Bible and the utterly ridiculous stories are numerous and similar in absurdity to many fairy tales. To be honest, the main reason most people believe in any one religion is because of their place of birth and/or it was their parents belief.
@NorwegianKafir The fictitious story in the Bible indicates that because Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil....then this was the original sin for which all of mankind has apparently been convicted and they weren't even born. Jesus supposedly had to die on the cross so that all of our sins could be forgiven.
To be honest, no bloodshed was necessary, Yahweh could have just forgiven mankind. He's just bloodthirsty. The fable is completely ridiculous.
@CynicalSkeptic1 I said you knew nothing about the Bible and that your rant was based on stupidity and ignorance. To test you I asked you one basic question regarding Christianity, but you could of course not answer. As the typical atheist you just gave me lots of rant. Great.
Why is it that Strobel uses all his Discovery Institute buddies in his dvds for his "scientists". And why when Strobel's science finally gets to court (Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial) does it turn out to be garbage science? Who could see that coming.
Strobel may have once been an atheist, but he was obviously a stupid one if he bought this kind of bullshit.
He's an idiot, and his arguments neither follow logic nor have any basis in evidence, he jumps to conclusions based upon his bias, and did I mention he's an idiot.
@stevenweir76 He is such an idiot that he went to an ivy league school and became the legal editor at a major newspaper. If he jumped to conclusions based on his own bias would he not have stayed an atheist. If he is an idiot, I would gladly welcome him. Btw he did investigate it and decided what he thought is true.
@apple834 - Intuition without evidence followed by confirmation bias is self-reinforced delusion. And if he went to an Ivy League school, I guess that makes him an Ivy League idiot.
Or maybe you think you can prove Jesus even existed. If you can smarty pants. I'll convert to Christianity in a video here on youtube. Otherwise you and every Christian should shut up so people don't know how stupid you are.
@stevenweir76 OK, read The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you are able to find any errors, let me know. If not, make your video about your conversion to Christianity.
But of course you will not do that. As a typical hatefilled youtube atheist you will just run away and continue your vast ignorant statements. But then again, that's exactly why you are an atheist in the first place.
@NorwegianKafir - In the introduction it reads, "To anyone who is not open to the notion of an immaterial mental substance distinct to a material substratum, the whole project of natural theology is abortive." I'm done right there and that's an honest effort. As for the rest of the book it offers a bloated Kalam argument which can never logically conclude in the God you believe and presents straw-men or false statements which are currently unknown, such as "The universe had a beginning"
@NorwegianKafir - Why not instead just tell me why you believe there is a God, you read the book, present it and argue for it?
WOuld you read the God delusion? No, then don't expect me to go past the first bullshit I see in your book. I showed you the first difficulty I had with the argument, and you choose not to address it.
@stevenweir76 I presented you a book you do not want to read. I have already read your retarded book. Why should I waste any time on an deliberate ignoramus as you?
@NorwegianKafir - I disagree with the initial premise, I do not believe immaterial minds exist, therefor the following arguments will be made upon an ambiguous statement and are not verifiable.
@stevenweir76 OK, then you just as an idiot who rejects numbers and therefore will not read anything containing math even though it will be proved logically and empirically.
@NorwegianKafir - It's like me asking you to believe in invisible unicorns, then going on to explain how they make rainbows, even though you don't believe in invisible unicorns. The prequisite for the book is an assumption, that immaterial minds exist. I do not believe that statement is true and my statement is justified because I have never perceived such a thing in any form.
@stevenweir76 - Page 2 of the introduction, the page has an X at the top.
Your statement "do I accept applied mathematics" is a loaded question, it all depends on what you are plugging in and who is doing the applying, but I'll bite, I generally accept applied mathematics.
@stevenweir76 read his book - in the beginning there was information or I believe you can find a lecture here on YT. His arguments are in one way based on cryptology.
@stevenweir76 absolutely not. Some religions claim that both good and evil exists within and from "god". Other religions reject good and evil. As Nietzsche did in Jenzeit Gut und Böse.
etc etc. Your logical nonsense made by some moronic low-IQ individual.
@stevenweir76 no, I just pointed out your false logic. I never gave a definition of God. You did, and it was completely false. Great logical "argument there". You couldn't even pass the definition of God test.
@NorwegianKafir - So a piece of the book fails which I assume is building the argument, why don't you tell me the first part of the God Delusion that you disagree with.
@NorwegianKafir - But stop bouncing, do you want to look at the math proof, or discuss books, I'll read farther, but if you are unwilling to do the same I consider that bad faith and a certain sign that you are not being honest in a search fo rthe truth.
@stevenweir76 unwilling to do the same, bad faith? What are you talking about. I have already read the book you recommended. You have not read even one of the books I have directed you to. Clearly the one with bad faith and not honestly seeking for the truth is you.
@NorwegianKafir - I have read as far as to my first disagreement, I don't believe you have done the same because I fear you wouldn't have the same ability to defend your arguments.
Now do you want to bounce away from this again and talk about that math proof where you can say nothing at all except that I am stupid for not reading it?
@NorwegianKafir - And if you will prove you are reading that book, I will read and prove likewise to you. Otherwise the perspective is one-sided, which is biased, and also shows a lack of faith on your part.
@NorwegianKafir - I'll even settle for you finding the flaw in my simple argument taken from a different book. (The six ways of Atheism by Geoffry Berg) It is the argument I presented below.
@NorwegianKafir - Now I'm reading chapter one in which it is asking me to accept revealed theology, which I do not. Do you have an argument against the God delusion yet?
@stevenweir76 skip chapter one you have already, based on the INTRODUCTION, discarded that essay anyway. But of course you don't really seek the truth. You prefer rather to hide in your ignorance.
@NorwegianKafir - I'm reading farther into the book you've suggested and have now reached my second objection, which is that naturalism rules out the existence of God, which I disagree with, I merely do not accept a God without evidence, and that is any God; good,evil, or ambivalent.
@stevenweir76 read the whole book. Find errors and then come back so we can talk. Until then you are just in uninformed ignoramus making false arguments based on ignorance and stupidity.
@NorwegianKafir - I already have presented three arguments whilst you have not presented one against the book I asked you to read. You are a liar, and you protest too much. And that's not ad hominem, that's a fact.
@stevenweir76 I have read the book. Read the book I gave and we can then meet when you are finished. Then I am willing to discuss the fool Dawkins and his moronic book. This guy is the biggest charlatan ever seen.
@NorwegianKafir - No, you don't speak in good faith, I have read as much of your book as I'm going to until you give me one single tiny argument to "The God Delusion" and I have given three objections to your book, which are two leaps of faith and a straw-man.
@stevenweir76 Yes, I am a Christian. And if you use the Christian God this IS the best possible world, since God allowed free will, the fall of man, good and evil, judgement and Heavenly rewards and justice.
If you look at the whole system this is the best you can get. If you change something it will have vast implications that are in result extremely evil. Atheists do not understand enough about Christianity to make any value judgement. They only base their opinions on stupidity and ignorance
@NorwegianKafir - Where in Christianity does it say that God gives free will?
I can think of a better system, one which has no suffering to begin with which means there would be no conflict.
Why would finite actions deserve infinite reward and infinite punishment, those precepts are unbalanced, thus unjust? I used to be Christian, and have probably read more of the Bible than you, which makes me at least as qualified as you to comment on the religion.
@stevenweir76 Free will is all over the Bible, stated many places.
OK, please explain to me HOW you can create a world without suffering. If I wanted to rape and murder someone, what would you do in your world?
Seriously, you don't understand free will from the Bible, believe God is Allah and claim that you know at least as much as me about Christianity? Really?
@NorwegianKafir - If there is free will as you said, then why did God stay the hand of Abraham, why did the flood happen, and why was pharoah's heart hardened instead of left to be?
I don't believe God is Allah, I don't believe either, but they are rooted in the same belief system, they are all based on the God of Abraham for crying out loud.
@NorwegianKafir - It seems to me that you have no choice but to suffer for the crimes of Adam and Eve, and to accept that someone died for you even though you weren't alive to prevent it or do anything about it. Is that how free will works. Being dictated to and then coerced to comply or suffer eternal torment.
How does that work and keep in accordance with free will. If I had free will I would have no disease nor suffering. I wouldn't ever be hungry nor tired.
@NorwegianKafir - I have three objections now, have you presented your first yet. As for point two, why wouldn't a good and all-powerful God create the best world? Number 3, I don't know, but the argument is from inconsistency, which demonstrates that the world changing is not the best world possible, the point still stands, even without definition as the point is not contingent on the definition of best by virtue of its argument to difference.
@stevenweir76 are you serious? Do you understand logic? All human beings shop at wal mart. If you don't shop at wal-mart you are not a human.
And if you ask me regarding the retarded and false reasoning, I would give you an answer like, well wall-mart is really cheap, why would a human being not shop at wal mart?
Gee, your reasoning is really crazy. Where did you find your nutty premises? What on earth do you base them on?
@NorwegianKafir - Why don't you go back to Werner Gitt, what was his proof for God, or do you even know what it is?
I base my premises on the definition of God by the three major faiths of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the God is well defined as having the attributes I have assigned.
@stevenweir76 I see, so you ONLY are able to disprove the Abrahamic God.
I also see that you don't understand there is a vast difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Muslim god Allah in regard of God's ability to commit and permit evil deeds.
@NorwegianKafir - I am reading no more of the stupid book, you lied about reading the book I asked you to read. As for the Abrahamic God, you define yourself as Christian according to your webpage, so are you a Christian?
@NorwegianKafir - And the Judeo-Christian God is the same God in the Koran, so I fail to see the point there, it is only farther argument from my inconsistent world even if you only accept the Judeo-Christian aspect as heaven itself changed according to scripture.
You are coming up snake-eyes my friend, and as long as you believe things written in books of superstition from long ago, you always will.
@stevenweir76 OK, idiot Dawkins uses the "who created God" argument. After the Big-Bang theory is generally accepted within the scientific community one can now say that the Universe had a beginning. Therefore it may also have a creator. Before acceptance of the Big Bang atheists used the argument that the Universe was eternal, without beginning and therefore could not have a creator.
God IS eternal and logically CAN NOT have a creator.
This is so unbelievable simple, but not for Dawkins
@NorwegianKafir - Your argument against Dawkins is short-sighted, if you can say God always existed, why can't you say the universe or the potential for it always existed? You say God is eternal, yet you haven't even proved God exists, at this stage it is only a concept for me, and one you still have not defined well because of your beliefs being incongruent with reality.
@stevenweir76 sigh - one more time. Since the known universe had a beginning it can have a creator. That's logical, even for the fool Dawkins.
But, this moron Dawkins are so stupid that he is not able to see that something eternal CAN NOT LOGICALLY have a creator. Yet he whine and bitch about who is the creator of the ETERNAL GOD! IT IS ABSURD. His appalling stupidity makes my brain hurt!
@NorwegianKafir - The universe might have a creator, but it may also have always existed or its potential may always have existed, and it doesn't necessarily need an intelligent creator, these are all assumptions, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
So how do you know that the universe isn't eternal, and this is just a changing form, and if it did have a beginning, how does your belief prove anything as to what caused that beginning?
@stevenweir76 that was not my argument. My argument was to show you just one of the many illogical and moronic arguments Dawkins made.
I know the Universe was created by the Christian God. I have given you some books you should read. Regarding the Bible and Christianity I would find a good Bible teacher or Chuck Missler's DVDs/MP3s.
@NorwegianKafir - I don't want to know what you think you know, I want to know how you know. How do you know your version of God is the correct one, what evidence do you have?
Why should a book meant to unify humanity be so ambiguous that it requires translation and apologetics. The book is a failure. It calls evil things good and good things evil by my standard and yours. Seriously, go read it cover to cover. You can't remain Christian unless you are mentally ill.
@stevenweir76 do some study. Watch chuck missler or read at least 1000 pages of Bible difficulties before you make your moronic statement. You don't even understand the Bible and free will, so why on earth should anyone listen to you?
@NorwegianKafir - SO if what you say is true, why did God flood the Earth according to the story of Noah, why was their free will usurped on God's whimsy?
@NorwegianKafir - You keep telling me to read this, or watch this, but these things you are asking me to read and watch are impotent without prior belief. They are not convincing because they contain no logical arguments and always require faith, which I neither have nor admire.
@NorwegianKafir - Now that you've insulted me several times why don't you do some introspect, or as a Christian did Jesus say insult those who disagree with you. I must've missed that part. Your threats are meaningless, I know you are wrong, plain and simple. Now go struggle with your faith for a while and maybe this time instead of whitewashing the truth away you think and learn that your beliefs are lies.
@NorwegianKafir - What you are seeking is special pleading, you are asking me to believe God is eternal and that the universe in some form or its potential couldn't be eternal. Special pleading means your argument has no merit because you require different rules to make it superior.
You can tell yourself that all you want, but it won't work on anyone else unless they're stupid. You do realize you still haven't proved God even exists right?
@NorwegianKafir - Let's hear your argument for God then, you don't even have to prove your God, prove any God exists in any form, anything supernatural at all.
@NorwegianKafir - And just so we get one thing clear. I am not a test of faith sent by God. I am a human who thinks religion is evil, God is bullshit and that helping minds like yours escape religion is the means to the best future for humanity.
@stevenweir76 I see, you are an ignorant, evil moron who are perfectly happy to continue this sad state of affairs.
I have done my homework and reached my conclusions based on facts and logic. I have demonstrated and you have admitted that you are clueless. So either you can read the books I gave you and gain knowledge or you can continue to be an uninformed ignorant atheist moron. Your choice
@NorwegianKafir - I choose neither, I will be an enlightened atheist until evidence to the contrary arises, and humans apologizing for the lack of God's appearance are worthless. It's a pitiful attempt to prey on the insecurities of sheep such as yourself.
@stevenweir76 I have given you evidence to the contrary but you refuse to read. You prefer ignorance and stupidity, and I guess that is what you call being an "enlightened atheist". Sheep of the retard Dawkins.
@stevenweir76 I have directed you to several books that proves God's existence. You don't bother to read them. That's YOUR problem. You want to continue to be an ignoramus, fine with me. That's your choice.
@NorwegianKafir - They are all based on the God of Abraham. Why shouldn't the last revelation of Muhammad be accepted, yet you accept the other revelations? Do you want the clear links to the God of Abraham, do you want to play connect the dots?
1. How do you KNOW they ALL are based on the God of Abraham?
2. There are numerous parts, commands, claims etc between the Qur'an and the Bible that are MUTUAL EXCLUSIVE. Hence they CAN NOT have the same origin. And the Biblical God can not lie.
@NorwegianKafir - Every scholar knows the basis of the religions, the tale is in all the religions, are you living under a rock that you don't know, seriously, go ask your priest or preacher or pastor or whoever preaches this crap to you. You need to read the Bible, then the Koran, so many overlapping stories, Jesus is in the Koran for crying out loud. You are right about one thing, the religion evolved, the claims are different, and accord with the civilization of the region. Man-made.
@NorwegianKafir - And how do you know that the Biblical God can't lie, because the Bible says so, what if the Bible is wrong? (And I'm pretty sure it is as all religions posit claims which are incongruent with reality) You do know that the Bible was written by men right?
God in the Bible says He can't lie. Due to mutual exclusive claims either God in the Bible or Quran lies. Ergo CAN NOT both the God of Bible and the Quran exist at the same time and be true. Ergo is your claim that is the SAME God false. Capisce?
@NorwegianKafir - So you believe God can't lie because the Bible says so, and that Bible is true why?
Are you hopping on the circular logic train, where the Koran proves Allah and Allah proves the Koran, or the Bagavad Gita proves Vishnu and Vishnu proves the Bagavad Gita, or the Bible proves Yahweh, and Yahweh proves the Bible, even though you've never seen Yahweh? None of these Gods are true, they are all invented concepts, nothing more.
@NorwegianKafir - I only argued that the two concepts are both based upon the God of Abraham, I made no farther comment, I asked you to ask your priest or preacher or pastor.
@NorwegianKafir - So you are calling the Koran and 1.2 billion Muslims liars, what makes you so certain that Muhammad wasn't a prophet of God, you seem to get certainty about the veracity of the Bible from somewhere, I'd like to know where, because from where I'm standing you have less proof of your prophet than the Muslims have of theirs. We know Mohammad existed, prove to me Jesus existed. As for your last sentiment it's very nice, I wish all a happy life, free of religion.
@NorwegianKafir You said "Proof Jesus existed + far higher probability for Christian God than retarded atheism."
So, would the proof include the same book that relates stories about talking snakes, donkeys, and foliage? Perhaps this same book indicates that women were made from a rib or they turn into salt....or that men live in whale bellies for three days?
Also, just FYI, concerning your comment about "retarded atheism"....religiosity and education are inversely correlated. Google it.
@CynicalSkeptic1 academia is overrun by moronic hard left atheists. Most college professors are nuts. Highest percentage of idiots STILL believing in communism is among media and universities. Google it.
Show me when, where and by whom the hypothesis of evolution was tested. What was the probability. Same with life from dead matter. Probability with documentation.
Your psycho distortion of the Bible is just pathetic. Only displays your ignorance and stupidity about the subject.
@NorwegianKafir Your response of ad hominem attacks is quite typical of religious believers. It would appear that when a rational argument is sorely lacking then you must resort to hurling a plethora of insults. As far as your suggesting that I am stupid...my IQ is 143 (Genius being 140+) and I was tested twice for MGM (Mentally Gifted Minds) when I was a child.
Also, since you are obviously ignorant about the validity of evolutional theory, let me attempt to assist in your edification.
@NorwegianKafir Evolution is agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant scientists (completely dwarfing any contradictory viewpoint)....and is also frequently utilized in numerous fields of scientific study. I will post a few (and I have many more) examples of exactly how evolution is ONLY rejected when it conflicts with religious bias.
@NorwegianKafir James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
@NorwegianKafir In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@NorwegianKafir Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95--99% depending on the primate.
@NorwegianKafir The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
@NorwegianKafir Many Creationists prefer to state that Micro-evolution is valid and Macro-evolution is not. The only reason that Micro-E is accepted by Creationists is because it has been proven repeatedly under controlled conditions and there are many examples of Micro-E that we can view in everyday life. Macro-E is not accepted since it would then be confirming that Creation was inaccurate. (cont)
@NorwegianKafir "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
@NorwegianKafir We cannot possibly 'prove' what is considered Macro-E because these changes take place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
@NorwegianKafir Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
@NorwegianKafir OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
@NorwegianKafir Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
@NorwegianKafir As you can see, theory is defined differently in science. It doesn't go FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning. Evolution is a fact of life...there is no way to dispute it unless you are intellectualy dishonest or an imbecile without knowledge of evolutional theory. Let me know if you would like more detailed information with specific sources.
@CynicalSkeptic1 listen, you call evolution a theory all the time. A scientific theory is only a theory after the hypothesis has been tested. So WHO, WHERE and WHEN was the hypothesis tested and what was the PROBABILITY. YOU only gave me lots of rant. Just answer my question. It is very simple. Unless you of course are the typical uneducated atheist moron who knows nothing about science.
@NorwegianKafir You said "So WHO, WHERE and WHEN was the hypothesis tested and what was the PROBABILITY....Unless you of course are the typical uneducated atheist moron who knows nothing about science."
EXCUSE ME!!!!! I indicated a veritable plethora of information which is science related and you suggest I know nothing of science!!! This is from a man who believes in books about talking snakes and donkeys. INCREDIBLE!!
@CynicalSkeptic1 you just gave me lots of crap that DID NOT address my simple questions to you at all. So where is the probability then, unscientific atheist simpleton.
@NorwegianKafir Do some damn investigation yourself you lazy-ass bastard. Google is your friend. Do I have to walk you down the path of enlightenment and hold your hand the entire time? You shouldn't rely on a book which indicates that men can live in whale bellies for three days. Attempt to actually do some investigation (ON YOUR OWN).
By the way, don't take any more recently invented drugs, they are from SCIENTISTS (many of which utilize EVOLUTION).
@CynicalSkeptic1 path of enlightenment. YOU are the idiot running around calling an evolution a theory and you have NO clue if it the hypothesis was tested at all.
Give me the probability moron, you whining and bitching about science is just pathetic. You don't even understand the concept about "theory". Go read some books.
@NorwegianKafir Sir, I already explained in detail about the validify of evolution. You are free to believe in a book of fairy tales...it doesn't matter to me.
I already posted the response to your question about Jesus dying on the cross, but I will post it again since you apparently missed it.
I will also ask you a couple of questions about your religion that you (of course) won't be able to answer.
@NorwegianKafir (you said you didn't receive this) The fictitious story in the Bible indicates that because Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil....then this was the original sin for which all of mankind has apparently been convicted and they weren't even born. Jesus supposedly had to die on the cross so that all of these sins could be forgiven.
To be honest, no bloodshed was necessary,Yahweh could have just forgiven mankind. The story is ridiculous.
@CynicalSkeptic1 So where is the answer to my basic question regarding Christianity? You are a proven clueless idiot who don't believe in Christianity solely due to your dull mind and lazy attitude.
@NorwegianKafir I already answered your question about Christianity...twice. To be honest, I had no intentions of changing your mind about your religious beliefs. My target audience is for the religious believers who are 'on the fence' regarding their religion. I am satisfied with our collective comments and we can let Youtube viewers to be the judge as to what information is confirmable and which comments appear more plausible. Not to mention which of us believes in talking snakes.
@CynicalSkeptic1 fine. You couldn't even answer the simplest questions. That says a lot about you atheist and your pseudo-scientific understanding of evolution.
1. Evolution is simply variation in gene pools, variation of alleles and such. Within evolution you have different types of variation such as mutations, speciation etc. Which are you asking evidence for?
2. Your question about probability and verifying the theory is a bad question, it's like saying what's the probability of germ theory? The question is wrong. You need to be far more specific in the field of evolution on certain mutations or something.
@Boomboxpower 1. Absolutely not. Evolution is supposed to explain all variations of life ever recorded on earth.
2. What on earth are you talking about? Pasteur tested the Germ hypothesis. Of course the hypothesis of evolution should be tested and probability given before calling it a theory. Problem is everybody know it is a joke and the numbers would be horrific. Your absurd claim that evolution should ONLY be PARTIAL tested is Mickey Mouse science at its worst. Insane.
@NorwegianKafir 1. Yea, it does. Evolution is a category that incorporates different types of variation. You don't just get one type of variation, there are loads and different ways in which they happen.
@Boomboxpower 1. I am talking about the falsely claimed "theory" of evolution that absurdly is supposed to be able to explain life on earth without any divine intervention whatsoever.
2. You will have to go to Pasteur's papers. You using the germ theory only displays your lack of basic understanding of empirism. Germs can now be observed empirically. How life on earth came into being can not. Hence germs are scientific facts, while development on life on earth are determined by probability.
@NorwegianKafir 1. No, it doesn't explain life on earth, it explains variation on earth.
2. You saying "how life on earth came into being can not" shows your lack of basic understanding of evolution. That's abiogenesis. Germs can be observed empirically yes and so can variation of organisms and how they varied both past and present.
@Boomboxpower it is supposed to explain life all life on earth, but not the beginning.
2. No, we can NOT observe how life supposedly developed from one single cell organism to the variation of life on earth. It is completely absurd of you to claim that we can observe the "theory" of evolution today. Once again. WHO tested the hypothesis of evolution. What was the PROBABILITY? I would like to see the formulation of the retarded hypothesis and documentation.
@NorwegianKafir 1.It explains variation, you're just being stubborn now.
2. I never said we could view single celled organisms evolving into multi cellular organisms, you are defining evolution as something it isn't. Evolution incorporates all variation, what you are talking about is a tiny aspect of evolutionary theory called common descent. Asking the probability of evolution is like asking the probability of germ theory, it's a bad question.
@Boomboxpower 1. I have no idea what you are talking about and you just try to deflect my question.
2. Do you understand science at all? Atheists whine and bitch about the theory of evolution. Well, a theory is a tested hypothesis. With a probability. You claim basic method of empirical science is a bad question? How moronic is that? Do you have your own atheist pseudo-science where you can just ignore facts and probability?
@NorwegianKafir 1. No, I didn't. I was giving a precise definition of what evolution is. It's not an explanation for all life on earth, it's an explanation for variation of organisms on earth.
@Boomboxpower evolution has different meanings. I am talking about what is generally termed as the theory of evolution when life on earth without any divine intervention is supposedly and insanely tried to be explained.
Just give me the probability of the hypothesis of evolution, atheist fool. But of course you can't do that. So instead you use your red herring fallacies, as you atheists always do.
@Boomboxpower seriously, if you don't give me the probability with scientific documentation I will just leave and know that I gave met just another moronic atheist pseudo-scientist with no scientific understanding and blind faith the failed Darwinian voodoo science. That's why you never will test the hypothesis. It would fail miserably and all fanatic Darwiniacs would look like complete unscientific morons. Prove me wrong.
1:15
"Someone who gives an intellectual defense for Christianity"
That is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
itsjustameme 2 weeks ago
they cut him off at the very end.
10ramseyaaronr 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lee Strobel:
"I used to be an atheist like you - then I took an arrow in the brain."
NeroJoe83 1 month ago
Comment removed
NeroJoe83 1 month ago
Seriously, if we discovered an empty tomb or grave today....would we automatically assume that the corpse had somehow become reanimated and moved elsewhere?
No.
The best explanation would be that someone had moved the body. If someone started to suggest that the corpse might have become a zombie and walked away...then we would want to send him/her to the nearest psychiatric hospital. Yet, the same story allegedly has validity when espoused through religious belief.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
Strobel: "We have an empty tomb...that uh everybody in the first century conceded was empty. The question was how did it get empty...and I think the best explanation is the physical resurrection of Jesus."
Me: Uh, No. The best explanation for a corpse to be missing is that some LIVING people moved it....perhaps the apostles who would prefer to perpetuate their religion. The best explanation certainly isn't a story about a zombie.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1
You: Uh.No I haven't read the book. Don't know what I am talking about, but that won't stop me from ranting about things I am clueless about here on youtube. Yes I am pathetic, but so are most atheists here anyway. *_o
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Considering your insinuation that I am ignorant of the Bible...I was a Christian for twenty years and my parents sent me to Christian schools. I am well aware of what is indicated in the Bible and the utterly ridiculous stories are numerous and similar in absurdity to many fairy tales. To be honest, the main reason most people believe in any one religion is because of their place of birth and/or it was their parents belief.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 OK, then surely you can tell me why Jesus had to die on the cross and how that is related to our sins. This is basic Christianity.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir The fictitious story in the Bible indicates that because Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil....then this was the original sin for which all of mankind has apparently been convicted and they weren't even born. Jesus supposedly had to die on the cross so that all of our sins could be forgiven.
To be honest, no bloodshed was necessary, Yahweh could have just forgiven mankind. He's just bloodthirsty. The fable is completely ridiculous.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 I said you knew nothing about the Bible and that your rant was based on stupidity and ignorance. To test you I asked you one basic question regarding Christianity, but you could of course not answer. As the typical atheist you just gave me lots of rant. Great.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 I asked WHY did Jesus have to die on the cross. Again I only get some foggy, retarded rant.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
This is CNN? OK I'm really worried now. Oh, oh, CBN. We need an AGC to trick theists to think it's ABC. Atheist Greatness Channel
shabido1 2 months ago
how fucking retarded can you be??? relegion is bullshit and everyone knows it.. its so obvious i can hardly believe it..
Lasse1583 2 months ago
"we have a defensible faith"...No, you don't.
statikreg 3 months ago
Everybody in the 1st century conceded to be empty?
Including the whole Chinese population who probably didn't even know about the Christian faith?
shiya3 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is it that Strobel uses all his Discovery Institute buddies in his dvds for his "scientists". And why when Strobel's science finally gets to court (Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial) does it turn out to be garbage science? Who could see that coming.
Information39 3 months ago
Comment removed
Information39 3 months ago
Strobel may have once been an atheist, but he was obviously a stupid one if he bought this kind of bullshit.
He's an idiot, and his arguments neither follow logic nor have any basis in evidence, he jumps to conclusions based upon his bias, and did I mention he's an idiot.
stevenweir76 4 months ago
@stevenweir76 He is such an idiot that he went to an ivy league school and became the legal editor at a major newspaper. If he jumped to conclusions based on his own bias would he not have stayed an atheist. If he is an idiot, I would gladly welcome him. Btw he did investigate it and decided what he thought is true.
apple834 3 months ago
@apple834 - Intuition without evidence followed by confirmation bias is self-reinforced delusion. And if he went to an Ivy League school, I guess that makes him an Ivy League idiot.
Or maybe you think you can prove Jesus even existed. If you can smarty pants. I'll convert to Christianity in a video here on youtube. Otherwise you and every Christian should shut up so people don't know how stupid you are.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 OK, read The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. If you are able to find any errors, let me know. If not, make your video about your conversion to Christianity.
But of course you will not do that. As a typical hatefilled youtube atheist you will just run away and continue your vast ignorant statements. But then again, that's exactly why you are an atheist in the first place.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - In the introduction it reads, "To anyone who is not open to the notion of an immaterial mental substance distinct to a material substratum, the whole project of natural theology is abortive." I'm done right there and that's an honest effort. As for the rest of the book it offers a bloated Kalam argument which can never logically conclude in the God you believe and presents straw-men or false statements which are currently unknown, such as "The universe had a beginning"
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76
1. How do you know all these things without haven even read the book. I thought you atheists just loved science and reason?
2. Please point to me all these straw man fallacies and bloated arguments and present your position in a LOGICAL valid and true form.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Why not instead just tell me why you believe there is a God, you read the book, present it and argue for it?
WOuld you read the God delusion? No, then don't expect me to go past the first bullshit I see in your book. I showed you the first difficulty I had with the argument, and you choose not to address it.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I have read the idiotic book the God delusion. You must be a moron if you take Dawkins illogical rambling seriously.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Tell me where the logic fails in that book then, since you have read it.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I presented you a book you do not want to read. I have already read your retarded book. Why should I waste any time on an deliberate ignoramus as you?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorwegianKafir - None whatsoever, but if you can't prove your God exists, you shouldn't be angry at those who don't believe it exists.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - But please stop moving the goalposts, stick to one thing instead of bouncing around like a jumping bean.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 what are you talking about?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I disagree with the initial premise, I do not believe immaterial minds exist, therefor the following arguments will be made upon an ambiguous statement and are not verifiable.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 OK, then you just as an idiot who rejects numbers and therefore will not read anything containing math even though it will be proved logically and empirically.
Good luck with your ignorance.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - If you show me some math that proves God exists I'll convert, and I fancy myself quite good at math, so let's have it.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 do you accept applied mathematics?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - It's like me asking you to believe in invisible unicorns, then going on to explain how they make rainbows, even though you don't believe in invisible unicorns. The prequisite for the book is an assumption, that immaterial minds exist. I do not believe that statement is true and my statement is justified because I have never perceived such a thing in any form.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 no. I have the book here now. Show me where they make that premise.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - It's in the introduction.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 give me the page
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I'm looking for it.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 - Page 2 of the introduction, the page has an X at the top.
Your statement "do I accept applied mathematics" is a loaded question, it all depends on what you are plugging in and who is doing the applying, but I'll bite, I generally accept applied mathematics.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 if you accept applied mathematics you should accept Werner Gitt - In the Beginning was Information.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - You are going to have to elaborate. I'm stupid, remember.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 read his book - in the beginning there was information or I believe you can find a lecture here on YT. His arguments are in one way based on cryptology.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - SO you don't understand his argument then?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Can you present his proof step by step?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 sorry, your education is your responsibility. Not mine. I have already read the idiot book from the fool Dawkins.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - So you said, now please show your contention with the book, tell me the first point you've disagreed with.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Let me give you a disproof for your God concept, it goes like this.
1) If God exists he must be omnipotent, supremely good and our ultimate creator.
2) Therefor and existent God would create the best possible world.
3) As the world is inconsistent (Between ages and people) it cannot all be the best possible world.
4) Therefor the world is not the best possible world, therefor God does not exist.
See how it is rational without making unjustified leaps.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 Gee, stupid atheist moron trying to be logic alert.
1. Please show me logically why a God MUST be good
2. Please show me why a good God MUST create best possible world
3. What is the "best possible world"? With free will? Without free will?
4. etc etc
You false and illogical "reasoning" is pure pseudo-logic.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Because a God being Good is a definition in theology for an attribute of God, if he isn't good, why worship him?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 absolutely not. Some religions claim that both good and evil exists within and from "god". Other religions reject good and evil. As Nietzsche did in Jenzeit Gut und Böse.
etc etc. Your logical nonsense made by some moronic low-IQ individual.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - So now that you loosen the definition of your God it becomes easier to defend. You say this being exists, how do you define it?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 no, I just pointed out your false logic. I never gave a definition of God. You did, and it was completely false. Great logical "argument there". You couldn't even pass the definition of God test.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - So again, I implore you, please give me your definition of God.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 idiot. Your quote is ONLY in reference to ONE essay by Taliaferro. Not the whole book.
A really bad excuse to avoid knowledge that counter your preconceptions.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - So a piece of the book fails which I assume is building the argument, why don't you tell me the first part of the God Delusion that you disagree with.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - But stop bouncing, do you want to look at the math proof, or discuss books, I'll read farther, but if you are unwilling to do the same I consider that bad faith and a certain sign that you are not being honest in a search fo rthe truth.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 unwilling to do the same, bad faith? What are you talking about. I have already read the book you recommended. You have not read even one of the books I have directed you to. Clearly the one with bad faith and not honestly seeking for the truth is you.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I have read as far as to my first disagreement, I don't believe you have done the same because I fear you wouldn't have the same ability to defend your arguments.
Now do you want to bounce away from this again and talk about that math proof where you can say nothing at all except that I am stupid for not reading it?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - And if you will prove you are reading that book, I will read and prove likewise to you. Otherwise the perspective is one-sided, which is biased, and also shows a lack of faith on your part.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I'll even settle for you finding the flaw in my simple argument taken from a different book. (The six ways of Atheism by Geoffry Berg) It is the argument I presented below.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Now I'm reading chapter one in which it is asking me to accept revealed theology, which I do not. Do you have an argument against the God delusion yet?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 skip chapter one you have already, based on the INTRODUCTION, discarded that essay anyway. But of course you don't really seek the truth. You prefer rather to hide in your ignorance.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I'm reading farther into the book you've suggested and have now reached my second objection, which is that naturalism rules out the existence of God, which I disagree with, I merely do not accept a God without evidence, and that is any God; good,evil, or ambivalent.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 read the whole book. Find errors and then come back so we can talk. Until then you are just in uninformed ignoramus making false arguments based on ignorance and stupidity.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I already have presented three arguments whilst you have not presented one against the book I asked you to read. You are a liar, and you protest too much. And that's not ad hominem, that's a fact.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I have read the book. Read the book I gave and we can then meet when you are finished. Then I am willing to discuss the fool Dawkins and his moronic book. This guy is the biggest charlatan ever seen.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - No, you don't speak in good faith, I have read as much of your book as I'm going to until you give me one single tiny argument to "The God Delusion" and I have given three objections to your book, which are two leaps of faith and a straw-man.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 until you are finished with the book you are absolutely NOT qualified to make any reasonable judgement about it's content. Read on.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - But ignore the book, I want your definition of God. You are a Christian right?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 Yes, I am a Christian. And if you use the Christian God this IS the best possible world, since God allowed free will, the fall of man, good and evil, judgement and Heavenly rewards and justice.
If you look at the whole system this is the best you can get. If you change something it will have vast implications that are in result extremely evil. Atheists do not understand enough about Christianity to make any value judgement. They only base their opinions on stupidity and ignorance
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Where in Christianity does it say that God gives free will?
I can think of a better system, one which has no suffering to begin with which means there would be no conflict.
Why would finite actions deserve infinite reward and infinite punishment, those precepts are unbalanced, thus unjust? I used to be Christian, and have probably read more of the Bible than you, which makes me at least as qualified as you to comment on the religion.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 Free will is all over the Bible, stated many places.
OK, please explain to me HOW you can create a world without suffering. If I wanted to rape and murder someone, what would you do in your world?
Seriously, you don't understand free will from the Bible, believe God is Allah and claim that you know at least as much as me about Christianity? Really?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - If there is free will as you said, then why did God stay the hand of Abraham, why did the flood happen, and why was pharoah's heart hardened instead of left to be?
I don't believe God is Allah, I don't believe either, but they are rooted in the same belief system, they are all based on the God of Abraham for crying out loud.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - It seems to me that you have no choice but to suffer for the crimes of Adam and Eve, and to accept that someone died for you even though you weren't alive to prevent it or do anything about it. Is that how free will works. Being dictated to and then coerced to comply or suffer eternal torment.
How does that work and keep in accordance with free will. If I had free will I would have no disease nor suffering. I wouldn't ever be hungry nor tired.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I have three objections now, have you presented your first yet. As for point two, why wouldn't a good and all-powerful God create the best world? Number 3, I don't know, but the argument is from inconsistency, which demonstrates that the world changing is not the best world possible, the point still stands, even without definition as the point is not contingent on the definition of best by virtue of its argument to difference.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 are you serious? Do you understand logic? All human beings shop at wal mart. If you don't shop at wal-mart you are not a human.
And if you ask me regarding the retarded and false reasoning, I would give you an answer like, well wall-mart is really cheap, why would a human being not shop at wal mart?
Gee, your reasoning is really crazy. Where did you find your nutty premises? What on earth do you base them on?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Why don't you go back to Werner Gitt, what was his proof for God, or do you even know what it is?
I base my premises on the definition of God by the three major faiths of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the God is well defined as having the attributes I have assigned.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I see, so you ONLY are able to disprove the Abrahamic God.
I also see that you don't understand there is a vast difference between the Judeo-Christian God and Muslim god Allah in regard of God's ability to commit and permit evil deeds.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I am reading no more of the stupid book, you lied about reading the book I asked you to read. As for the Abrahamic God, you define yourself as Christian according to your webpage, so are you a Christian?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - And the Judeo-Christian God is the same God in the Koran, so I fail to see the point there, it is only farther argument from my inconsistent world even if you only accept the Judeo-Christian aspect as heaven itself changed according to scripture.
You are coming up snake-eyes my friend, and as long as you believe things written in books of superstition from long ago, you always will.
But prove me wrong, define your God.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 OK, idiot Dawkins uses the "who created God" argument. After the Big-Bang theory is generally accepted within the scientific community one can now say that the Universe had a beginning. Therefore it may also have a creator. Before acceptance of the Big Bang atheists used the argument that the Universe was eternal, without beginning and therefore could not have a creator.
God IS eternal and logically CAN NOT have a creator.
This is so unbelievable simple, but not for Dawkins
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Your argument against Dawkins is short-sighted, if you can say God always existed, why can't you say the universe or the potential for it always existed? You say God is eternal, yet you haven't even proved God exists, at this stage it is only a concept for me, and one you still have not defined well because of your beliefs being incongruent with reality.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 sigh - one more time. Since the known universe had a beginning it can have a creator. That's logical, even for the fool Dawkins.
But, this moron Dawkins are so stupid that he is not able to see that something eternal CAN NOT LOGICALLY have a creator. Yet he whine and bitch about who is the creator of the ETERNAL GOD! IT IS ABSURD. His appalling stupidity makes my brain hurt!
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - The universe might have a creator, but it may also have always existed or its potential may always have existed, and it doesn't necessarily need an intelligent creator, these are all assumptions, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
So how do you know that the universe isn't eternal, and this is just a changing form, and if it did have a beginning, how does your belief prove anything as to what caused that beginning?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 that was not my argument. My argument was to show you just one of the many illogical and moronic arguments Dawkins made.
I know the Universe was created by the Christian God. I have given you some books you should read. Regarding the Bible and Christianity I would find a good Bible teacher or Chuck Missler's DVDs/MP3s.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I don't want to know what you think you know, I want to know how you know. How do you know your version of God is the correct one, what evidence do you have?
Why should a book meant to unify humanity be so ambiguous that it requires translation and apologetics. The book is a failure. It calls evil things good and good things evil by my standard and yours. Seriously, go read it cover to cover. You can't remain Christian unless you are mentally ill.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 do some study. Watch chuck missler or read at least 1000 pages of Bible difficulties before you make your moronic statement. You don't even understand the Bible and free will, so why on earth should anyone listen to you?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - SO if what you say is true, why did God flood the Earth according to the story of Noah, why was their free will usurped on God's whimsy?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - You keep telling me to read this, or watch this, but these things you are asking me to read and watch are impotent without prior belief. They are not convincing because they contain no logical arguments and always require faith, which I neither have nor admire.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 OK, fine, contiune to be an ill and misinformed ignoramus. Your choice.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Now that you've insulted me several times why don't you do some introspect, or as a Christian did Jesus say insult those who disagree with you. I must've missed that part. Your threats are meaningless, I know you are wrong, plain and simple. Now go struggle with your faith for a while and maybe this time instead of whitewashing the truth away you think and learn that your beliefs are lies.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I am not calling you names. I really DO mean that you are an ill and misinformed ignoramus.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Well you're just wrong then. Now grow up and stop playing school games.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I am not the one avoiding knowledge.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 anyway, it is very late and I have to go to bed now.
I wish you all the best and happy life. Amen.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - What you are seeking is special pleading, you are asking me to believe God is eternal and that the universe in some form or its potential couldn't be eternal. Special pleading means your argument has no merit because you require different rules to make it superior.
You can tell yourself that all you want, but it won't work on anyone else unless they're stupid. You do realize you still haven't proved God even exists right?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 you seriously do not get it. I pointed out FLAWED logic in the case of Dawkins ONLY.
That was not a part of my argument for God.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Let's hear your argument for God then, you don't even have to prove your God, prove any God exists in any form, anything supernatural at all.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - And just so we get one thing clear. I am not a test of faith sent by God. I am a human who thinks religion is evil, God is bullshit and that helping minds like yours escape religion is the means to the best future for humanity.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I see, you are an ignorant, evil moron who are perfectly happy to continue this sad state of affairs.
I have done my homework and reached my conclusions based on facts and logic. I have demonstrated and you have admitted that you are clueless. So either you can read the books I gave you and gain knowledge or you can continue to be an uninformed ignorant atheist moron. Your choice
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I choose neither, I will be an enlightened atheist until evidence to the contrary arises, and humans apologizing for the lack of God's appearance are worthless. It's a pitiful attempt to prey on the insecurities of sheep such as yourself.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I have given you evidence to the contrary but you refuse to read. You prefer ignorance and stupidity, and I guess that is what you call being an "enlightened atheist". Sheep of the retard Dawkins.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 I have directed you to several books that proves God's existence. You don't bother to read them. That's YOUR problem. You want to continue to be an ignoramus, fine with me. That's your choice.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 no. The God of the Qur'an is NOT the same as the God in the Bible. It is logically impossible.
This only demonstrates once again how ignorant you are about these matters.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - They are all based on the God of Abraham. Why shouldn't the last revelation of Muhammad be accepted, yet you accept the other revelations? Do you want the clear links to the God of Abraham, do you want to play connect the dots?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76
1. How do you KNOW they ALL are based on the God of Abraham?
2. There are numerous parts, commands, claims etc between the Qur'an and the Bible that are MUTUAL EXCLUSIVE. Hence they CAN NOT have the same origin. And the Biblical God can not lie.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - Every scholar knows the basis of the religions, the tale is in all the religions, are you living under a rock that you don't know, seriously, go ask your priest or preacher or pastor or whoever preaches this crap to you. You need to read the Bible, then the Koran, so many overlapping stories, Jesus is in the Koran for crying out loud. You are right about one thing, the religion evolved, the claims are different, and accord with the civilization of the region. Man-made.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - And how do you know that the Biblical God can't lie, because the Bible says so, what if the Bible is wrong? (And I'm pretty sure it is as all religions posit claims which are incongruent with reality) You do know that the Bible was written by men right?
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 geeeee, mooooore stupidity!
God in the Bible says He can't lie. Due to mutual exclusive claims either God in the Bible or Quran lies. Ergo CAN NOT both the God of Bible and the Quran exist at the same time and be true. Ergo is your claim that is the SAME God false. Capisce?
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - So you believe God can't lie because the Bible says so, and that Bible is true why?
Are you hopping on the circular logic train, where the Koran proves Allah and Allah proves the Koran, or the Bagavad Gita proves Vishnu and Vishnu proves the Bagavad Gita, or the Bible proves Yahweh, and Yahweh proves the Bible, even though you've never seen Yahweh? None of these Gods are true, they are all invented concepts, nothing more.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 idiot. My point was that if something is mutual exclusive it is logically impossible that both are true at the very same time.
Your rant has nothing to do with my point.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - I only argued that the two concepts are both based upon the God of Abraham, I made no farther comment, I asked you to ask your priest or preacher or pastor.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 no, you said SAME God. Big difference.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - They are both the God of Abraham, so technically I'm correct.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 no, your brother can falsely claim that he is your father, that does say that he is technically correct.
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir - So you are calling the Koran and 1.2 billion Muslims liars, what makes you so certain that Muhammad wasn't a prophet of God, you seem to get certainty about the veracity of the Bible from somewhere, I'd like to know where, because from where I'm standing you have less proof of your prophet than the Muslims have of theirs. We know Mohammad existed, prove to me Jesus existed. As for your last sentiment it's very nice, I wish all a happy life, free of religion.
stevenweir76 3 months ago
@stevenweir76 proof Muhammad is not from God, read "Prophet of doom" by Craig Winn.
Proof Jesus existed + far higher probability for Christian God than retarded atheism. "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman Geisler
NorwegianKafir 3 months ago
@NorwegianKafir You said "Proof Jesus existed + far higher probability for Christian God than retarded atheism."
So, would the proof include the same book that relates stories about talking snakes, donkeys, and foliage? Perhaps this same book indicates that women were made from a rib or they turn into salt....or that men live in whale bellies for three days?
Also, just FYI, concerning your comment about "retarded atheism"....religiosity and education are inversely correlated. Google it.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 academia is overrun by moronic hard left atheists. Most college professors are nuts. Highest percentage of idiots STILL believing in communism is among media and universities. Google it.
Show me when, where and by whom the hypothesis of evolution was tested. What was the probability. Same with life from dead matter. Probability with documentation.
Your psycho distortion of the Bible is just pathetic. Only displays your ignorance and stupidity about the subject.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Your response of ad hominem attacks is quite typical of religious believers. It would appear that when a rational argument is sorely lacking then you must resort to hurling a plethora of insults. As far as your suggesting that I am stupid...my IQ is 143 (Genius being 140+) and I was tested twice for MGM (Mentally Gifted Minds) when I was a child.
Also, since you are obviously ignorant about the validity of evolutional theory, let me attempt to assist in your edification.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 143, not impressed.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Evolution is agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant scientists (completely dwarfing any contradictory viewpoint)....and is also frequently utilized in numerous fields of scientific study. I will post a few (and I have many more) examples of exactly how evolution is ONLY rejected when it conflicts with religious bias.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorwegianKafir James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95--99% depending on the primate.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Many Creationists prefer to state that Micro-evolution is valid and Macro-evolution is not. The only reason that Micro-E is accepted by Creationists is because it has been proven repeatedly under controlled conditions and there are many examples of Micro-E that we can view in everyday life. Macro-E is not accepted since it would then be confirming that Creation was inaccurate. (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir We cannot possibly 'prove' what is considered Macro-E because these changes take place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir As you can see, theory is defined differently in science. It doesn't go FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning. Evolution is a fact of life...there is no way to dispute it unless you are intellectualy dishonest or an imbecile without knowledge of evolutional theory. Let me know if you would like more detailed information with specific sources.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 listen, you call evolution a theory all the time. A scientific theory is only a theory after the hypothesis has been tested. So WHO, WHERE and WHEN was the hypothesis tested and what was the PROBABILITY. YOU only gave me lots of rant. Just answer my question. It is very simple. Unless you of course are the typical uneducated atheist moron who knows nothing about science.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir You said "So WHO, WHERE and WHEN was the hypothesis tested and what was the PROBABILITY....Unless you of course are the typical uneducated atheist moron who knows nothing about science."
EXCUSE ME!!!!! I indicated a veritable plethora of information which is science related and you suggest I know nothing of science!!! This is from a man who believes in books about talking snakes and donkeys. INCREDIBLE!!
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 you just gave me lots of crap that DID NOT address my simple questions to you at all. So where is the probability then, unscientific atheist simpleton.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Do some damn investigation yourself you lazy-ass bastard. Google is your friend. Do I have to walk you down the path of enlightenment and hold your hand the entire time? You shouldn't rely on a book which indicates that men can live in whale bellies for three days. Attempt to actually do some investigation (ON YOUR OWN).
By the way, don't take any more recently invented drugs, they are from SCIENTISTS (many of which utilize EVOLUTION).
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 path of enlightenment. YOU are the idiot running around calling an evolution a theory and you have NO clue if it the hypothesis was tested at all.
Give me the probability moron, you whining and bitching about science is just pathetic. You don't even understand the concept about "theory". Go read some books.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir Sir, I already explained in detail about the validify of evolution. You are free to believe in a book of fairy tales...it doesn't matter to me.
I already posted the response to your question about Jesus dying on the cross, but I will post it again since you apparently missed it.
I will also ask you a couple of questions about your religion that you (of course) won't be able to answer.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 I asked you very SPECIFIC questions regarding evolution. Not ONE question were you able to answer.
Your rant that I never asked for is absolutely NOT a validation of evolution.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir (you said you didn't receive this) The fictitious story in the Bible indicates that because Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil....then this was the original sin for which all of mankind has apparently been convicted and they weren't even born. Jesus supposedly had to die on the cross so that all of these sins could be forgiven.
To be honest, no bloodshed was necessary,Yahweh could have just forgiven mankind. The story is ridiculous.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 So where is the answer to my basic question regarding Christianity? You are a proven clueless idiot who don't believe in Christianity solely due to your dull mind and lazy attitude.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir I already answered your question about Christianity...twice. To be honest, I had no intentions of changing your mind about your religious beliefs. My target audience is for the religious believers who are 'on the fence' regarding their religion. I am satisfied with our collective comments and we can let Youtube viewers to be the judge as to what information is confirmable and which comments appear more plausible. Not to mention which of us believes in talking snakes.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 fine. You couldn't even answer the simplest questions. That says a lot about you atheist and your pseudo-scientific understanding of evolution.
NorwegianKafir 2 months ago
@NorwegianKafir
1. Evolution is simply variation in gene pools, variation of alleles and such. Within evolution you have different types of variation such as mutations, speciation etc. Which are you asking evidence for?
2. Your question about probability and verifying the theory is a bad question, it's like saying what's the probability of germ theory? The question is wrong. You need to be far more specific in the field of evolution on certain mutations or something.
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower 1. Absolutely not. Evolution is supposed to explain all variations of life ever recorded on earth.
2. What on earth are you talking about? Pasteur tested the Germ hypothesis. Of course the hypothesis of evolution should be tested and probability given before calling it a theory. Problem is everybody know it is a joke and the numbers would be horrific. Your absurd claim that evolution should ONLY be PARTIAL tested is Mickey Mouse science at its worst. Insane.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@NorwegianKafir 1. Yea, it does. Evolution is a category that incorporates different types of variation. You don't just get one type of variation, there are loads and different ways in which they happen.
2. What's the probability of germ theory?
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower 1. I am talking about the falsely claimed "theory" of evolution that absurdly is supposed to be able to explain life on earth without any divine intervention whatsoever.
2. You will have to go to Pasteur's papers. You using the germ theory only displays your lack of basic understanding of empirism. Germs can now be observed empirically. How life on earth came into being can not. Hence germs are scientific facts, while development on life on earth are determined by probability.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@NorwegianKafir 1. No, it doesn't explain life on earth, it explains variation on earth.
2. You saying "how life on earth came into being can not" shows your lack of basic understanding of evolution. That's abiogenesis. Germs can be observed empirically yes and so can variation of organisms and how they varied both past and present.
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower it is supposed to explain life all life on earth, but not the beginning.
2. No, we can NOT observe how life supposedly developed from one single cell organism to the variation of life on earth. It is completely absurd of you to claim that we can observe the "theory" of evolution today. Once again. WHO tested the hypothesis of evolution. What was the PROBABILITY? I would like to see the formulation of the retarded hypothesis and documentation.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@NorwegianKafir 1.It explains variation, you're just being stubborn now.
2. I never said we could view single celled organisms evolving into multi cellular organisms, you are defining evolution as something it isn't. Evolution incorporates all variation, what you are talking about is a tiny aspect of evolutionary theory called common descent. Asking the probability of evolution is like asking the probability of germ theory, it's a bad question.
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower 1. I have no idea what you are talking about and you just try to deflect my question.
2. Do you understand science at all? Atheists whine and bitch about the theory of evolution. Well, a theory is a tested hypothesis. With a probability. You claim basic method of empirical science is a bad question? How moronic is that? Do you have your own atheist pseudo-science where you can just ignore facts and probability?
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@NorwegianKafir 1. No, I didn't. I was giving a precise definition of what evolution is. It's not an explanation for all life on earth, it's an explanation for variation of organisms on earth.
2. What is the probability of germ theory?
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower evolution has different meanings. I am talking about what is generally termed as the theory of evolution when life on earth without any divine intervention is supposedly and insanely tried to be explained.
Just give me the probability of the hypothesis of evolution, atheist fool. But of course you can't do that. So instead you use your red herring fallacies, as you atheists always do.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower seriously, if you don't give me the probability with scientific documentation I will just leave and know that I gave met just another moronic atheist pseudo-scientist with no scientific understanding and blind faith the failed Darwinian voodoo science. That's why you never will test the hypothesis. It would fail miserably and all fanatic Darwiniacs would look like complete unscientific morons. Prove me wrong.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@NorwegianKafir How do you explain commonalities between human and chimpanzee ERV's on the genome?
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower common creator.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
@NorwegianKafir Please provide evidence for said creator.
Boomboxpower 1 month ago
@Boomboxpower here atheist fool:
Definition for theory of evolution:
Web definitions:
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Look like your whining about only small variations blah, blah, was a blatant lie.
NorwegianKafir 1 month ago
Comment removed
Boomboxpower 1 month ago