"Nazi scientists tortured plenty of people XD" but hitler was a Young Earth Creationist Roman Catholic and German public service was preceded by an oath of loyalty to the fuhrer which invoked the name of God.
@WxsOnline Hitler was not a true catholic. He only "converted" for political reasons. There is evidence that hitler was planning to wipe out the catholic and christian religions once he assumed full power. Hitler was hard core Atheist
@SeedsOfHatred In 'Mein Kampf' and in public speeches he often made statements which affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted a "positive Christianity" purged of Judaism and instilled with Nazi philosophy. According to the collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled 'Hitler's Table Talk', as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity.
@SeedsOfHatred Ok, I concede that perhaps he believed in God, but my main point was that he exploited Chirstianity in order to gain power. I say that in response to people who say "Hitler was Christian" in order to talk bad about religion.
@jonnyneo53 And perhaps to an extent, he did. The man was delusional and acted accordingly.
However, what one must also keep in mind is that Hitler was in fact motivated by whatever religion or God he percieved in his mind, and it allowed him a personal justification for his actions. Just as the Crusades prove that even the most humble religion can be justification for violence.
Irrationality always carries with it a risk of danger. Hitler or not; religion is dangerous.
@SeedsOfHatred Ive heard Atheists say that there should be a crusade to kill all religious people in order to preserve the human race from the "Dangers of Religion". Atheism can be just as dangerous as the religious fanatics.
Cute. I'm not very up-to-date on all of the official "fallacies", but I bet that's one of them.
Throughout history, millions have died by those who truly felt they were doing their particular god's work. Millions. However, not a single person has died in the name of an empty cosmos.
No, Atheism is not equally as dangerous as religion. It's idiotic for you to even suggest it.
@SeedsOfHatred How is that a fallacy? Ive litteraly heard them say and have seen comments of Atheist saying to kill Religious people. Mark my words, one day, people will get so tired of Religion that there will be a world-wide persecution of Religious people with the goal of permanently ending all Religions.
@jonnyneo53 It's a fallacy because you're asserting that, because a few atheists can become so fed-up from time to time that they suggest we just eliminate all believers, this somehow means that Atheism is just as dangerous as religion itself.
No. Simply no. As I said, millions have been hacked to death with swords and machetes by attackers who were screaming the name of their God.
Nobody has done this in the name of Atheism. Nobody.
@SeedsOfHatred Fine, ill apply your fallacy to you then. It's a fallacy because you're asserting that, because a some religious fanatics can become so fed-up from time to time that they just eliminate some non-believers throughout history, this somehow means that all religions are dangerous.
Some Atheists can be as dangerous as some religious fanatics.
@jonnyneo53 And yet, you're failing to see the glaring point. One that I've been making since we began speaking.
Religion's body count is in the millions.
Atheism's body count is nil.
No, I'm not making a logical fallacy, because religion has killed millions in recorded history, whereas Atheism has killed none. This shows quite clearly that religion - and it's irrationality - is inherantly dangerous. This has never been shown with Atheism.
@SeedsOfHatred Yea..... No. Just as there are Religious fanatics, there are Atheistic fanatics. Phycopaths and Sociopaths by Nature are incapable of empathy, guilt, or emotions. Things that are needed to have a belief in God. So by definition Phycopaths and Sociopaths are Atheists. Atheists body counts are plenty as well, my friend.
@jonnyneo53 Yes, and there are chocolate-loving sociopaths, and dog-loving sociopaths, and, believe it or not, God-loving sociopaths. This brings us back to the Hitler argument, but we can also assert David Koresh or Jim Jones as examples. Even Son of Sam and Charles Manson.
I say again, nobody has killed in the name of an empty cosmos (or chocolate; or dogs). MANY have killed in the name of God.
You're quickly becoming dense. Please try to refrain.
@SeedsOfHatred U'd be surprised how many people have been killed in the name of Chocolate. And yeah, I totally pulled that Sociopath arguement out of my ass. But my point still stands, Atheistic fanatics can be as Dangerous as Religious fanatics. You simply don't know if anyone out there has been killed simply for being religious. On a large scale though, not YET.
And stop calling me cute. Im getting uncomfortable....
@jonnyneo53 Your point does not stand, because it has nothing to back it up. Even just now, you've admited that nobody has been killed in the name of atheism on a large scale. This is true, but it implies that perhaps some have been killed on a painfully small scale. I concede that perhaps that is true, but this also suggests that anyone who's been beaten in an alley for being religious was beaten by those who were already sociopathic anyway. Their supposed atheism would be completely
@jonnyneo53 (Part 2) circumstancial. That was my point with dog-lovers and chocolate-lovers. "Well maybe some people have been killed by atheists", yeah, and maybe some people have been killed by die-hard Corvette lovers, too. It says nothing about the Corvette, or about chocolate, or about dogs, or about Atheism.
History does not lie. MILLIONS (I'll repeate yet again) have died directly and specifically because of religion.
Religion has thus proven itself as MUCH more of a threat than a lack
@jonnyneo53 (Part 3) of a belief in God. It's really very simple. You can twist and contort and "pull facts out of your ass" all you want, but the evidence is clear. Religion is an incredibly easy way to justify slaughtering droves of people. Atheism is not. It has not been, and I'm going to bet it will never be.
Accept it or don't. The choice is yours and is of no consequence to me.
@SeedsOfHatred Oh, it will happen on a large scale. You know how sick people are of religion? One day some religious nut will do something stupid, and it'll be the straw that broke the cammels back. Then we'll see Atheists kill for 'Natural Selection' and the survival of the human race.
@jonnyneo53 An argument based on future events that may or may not take place?
Now THAT is a fallacy is I've ever seen one.
"My 3-year-old son might be a pedophile one day. Do you realize how many children grow up to be pedophiles? Odds are, he's going to be one too. Thus, my son is a pedophile. Not only that, but all children are equally as dangerous as grown pedophiles because they have the potential to molest children one day."
@jonnyneo53 Name a single prophecy that could not have - in any way, shape, or form - been prophesied by any jackoff who got the idea to write a few lines of scripture and call it "God's word".
Nostrodamus predicted one or two things accurately as well. On the whole, however, both he and your Bible fail to live up to the hype.
We're now making arguments from scripture (after all else has failed), which is one of the worst things a theist can do. Tread lightly.
@SeedsOfHatred (a) Aw, I can only name 1 prophecy? Fine.
Prophecy- (Isaiah 44:24,27,28; 45:1-4) Reads as follows:
“Jehovah . . . the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’ ...
@SeedsOfHatred (b) ...This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: ‘Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. ...
@SeedsOfHatred (c) ... The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. . . . For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name.’”
Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E. This prophecy was written about 200 years before these events actually happened.
Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., ...
@jonnyneo53 Once again, this is a vague reference to something that any man during the time of writing could have predicted. This does not scream "supernatural" or "divine" in any way. Try again.
On a side note, to my knowledge, the only Bible to reference the name of Jehovah is the NWT. Would you happen to be a Witness?
@SeedsOfHatred Ha! You're honestly saying that all that excrutiating detail is "Vague"? You sir, are either dishonest or foolish.
and BTW, The King James Bible, American Standard Version Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version Bible, and Webster's Bible Translation all say Jehovah.
@jonnyneo53 Yes, it is vague. Why? Because it's not "excruciating detail", firstly, and secondly, what little we can now interpret as being referenced could have been easily predicted by any man of that time.
Once again, I ask you to give me a reference to a prophecy that can only have a supernatural explanation. The Bible predicts that wars will be waged and believers will be persecuted and that dramatic things will happen.
If looked at objectively, these things are no-brainers. Obviously
@SeedsOfHatred .... instructed them to Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
5) At the Beggining of this specific prophecy, at chapter 13, Isaiah clearly states that it would be Babylon who would fall. Babylon wasnt even in Power at the time. What a HUGE coincidence that Cyrus invaded Babylon.
6) Chapter 13 also states that it would be the Medes and Persians who would do the invading. What a HUGE coincidence that Cyrus commanded the Persian and Medes army. .....
@SeedsOfHatred ..... Sorry if your too delusional to rationally see that No mere man could have predicted something with such accuracy if not for the Insiration of God himself.
@jonnyneo53 I have to at this point admit that I do not know enough about the historical accuracy of this particular event. As a result, I cannot sufficiently refute it.
However, you seem to have been disappointed that I asked for a single prophecy. By all means, feel free to provide more.
@jonnyneo53 (Part 2) people are going to go to war with one another. Obviously believers are going to be opposed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a man of God) to predict that.
WHat would have been impressive is a Biblical reference to DNA or the Black Plague.
Or even to the Crusades, which you claim were carried out by men who had twisted God's word. Surely God would have opposed such perversion of his word and would have warned us not to let it stumble us.
@SeedsOfHatred (d) ... and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. . In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake and dried up the Euphrates river ("the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up"),, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, ...
@SeedsOfHatred (e) ...("to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut"), and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus ("This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations"). Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild God’s temple there. ...
@SeedsOfHatred (f) ... ("the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple").
@jonnyneo53 I have to point out, though, that I like how you desperately tried to label sociopaths as atheists in order to have some kind of hold on your position (as fallacious as it was).
It was cute. Desperate and rather laughable, but cute.
Christian science is bullcrap. Either be a real Christian, or don't be. This newfangled "riding on the fence" "Cristian science" is stupid. I'm guessing that is what he's reffering to, although he's also opposed to regular Christianity. In that case, one cannot argue that non-believers never tortured believers. Nazis tortured Jews much worse, The USSR tortured Christians heavily, in many parts of Asia, like in rural/poor Indonesia owners of bibles are killed. Arguement goes both ways i suppose
@AlexRider001 Oh yeah I know. I was jus' saying that he mentioned that believers tortured non-believers, without mentioning that non-believers also tortured believers just as much if not moreso. That's all, so technically, that "Tourture" point he wrote under "Creationalism" also belongs under "Evolution" evenly. But hey, it's a free country, one can say whatever one wants really XD
@AlexRider001 Oh cool ty for clearing that up. AHA! okay so he's comparing scientists to Christians. TY for clearing that up, it makes more sense now. But hey, Nazi scientists tortured plenty of people XD
@AlexRider001 Well maybe some scientists have tortured some people but the crusades were justified to be morally correct. Imagine if we thought Nazi's were heroes because a book told us that an unobservable being told them to do it.
@risentru I like how you managed to fit 4/5 things in less than a complete sentence from the non science section that was listed in the video. That takes a special kind of stupid.
@only1too You do realize that Einstein's THEORY of relativity explains gravity a lot better than Newton's LAWS of Gravitation does, right? "Theory" in science means something a lot different than you think it does.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. We observe animals changing over time (fossil record and lab). This is a fact. The THEORY of evolution is how these animals change over time. The same is true for gravity. We observe gravity. This is fact. How we explain it is the theory.
fossils r fact; who,what,when etc they are are linked to sapien IS a theory; speculative hypothesis of supposition based on assumption of facts AT HAND which CAN have more than one theory of why/how the whole big bang came to be.
gravity & light r observable fact.theories how they work abound ergo theories thereof- which are constantly in flux as we observe more of micro/macro cosmos.explain what we CAN/HAVE observed but NOT definitive as we accept much is still unrevealed
@only1too You are still confusing a scientific theory to the layman definition of theory.
Fossils are a fact--yes, we observe them. How we explain them is the theory, yes. It's not speculative at all considering that many of the traits of fossils are direct predictions of evolution. For example, evolution predicts that the older the fossils are, the more "simple" they would be. That is what we see.
p.s. still doesn´t refute FACTS(which still stump ¨scientists¨)stated about Troy,trilithon stones,or 1st human civilization; which popped into existence 6000yrs ago-as stated in Bible- without pre-cursor/amble or links to less developed civs(as would be required of¨the theory¨) yet had written language,laws,institutions,stunning architecture & EVEN GOD(s) ie. understanding of spiritual matters!?! we´re not just electro-chemical meat bags as some would have us believe....
@only1too No precursor? Are you high? And even if the Bible predicts that this civilization pops in 6000 years ago, it only shows me that you don't even know your own religion. 6,000 years ago was when God created the Earth and the heaven right? So you're claiming that this city was already here at the time God created Earth. Yet this was supposed to be the time where the only humans on Earth were Adam and Eve.
@only1too Evolution is a fact. We can, and have, observed it happening, in both controlled and uncontrolled enviroments. There are no "missing links" that supposedly debunk theory of evolution. Not a single one. As deadfishfactory pointed out to you, "theory" is one of the highest grades of certainty a scientific principle can get.
word theory doesn´t change for science.there are lots of missing links from species to species & within species which evo puts down to another ¨theory¨;¨accelerated evolution¨.leaps & bounds that would embarrass superman- & withOUT proof.within human ancestral line are no,repeat,no link(s) from chimp (closet relative apparently) to man, erectus(APE-like primate)to sapien.why in the early 20thC A.D. ¨scientists¨came up w/ piltdown, java etc. links? bad history research on your part
You've said: "word theory doesn´t change for science."
Actually it does. Just check out this homepage here:
w w w . notjustatheory . c o m
It presents a short but accurate explanation what the difference is between the meaning of the word "theory" in science and how it differs form the laymans definition of a theory.
Btw.: Just because scientists made some mistakes in the past doesn't devaluate science in any way, nor does it confirm your fairy tale (=The Bible),
@only1too You're the one doing bad research. Evolution accounts for these "missing links". In fact, they were expected. A few missing bits here and there don't make it any less a fact. We have a very nice fossil record on whales, and many other species. And even without the entire fossil record, it would still be a fact, as we have observed it happening in laboratories, and in nature.
Fossils are a fact.Linking them in an order- which becomes very broken very quickly- is a theory trying to explain how fossils became man or a theory called evolution; a hypothesis based on the supposition of the assumption that all things came from one source,hence the tree model ie.¨theory¨
Except findings are proving life formed from multiple points,in a very short time & what exists now is actually a far less varied variety of life.The ¨tree of life¨has been tuned upside down
First, every worldview that has gained popular traction, including atheism, has been used by the controllers of states for evil, bolshevism, crusade, jihad, caste system, could keep going. Second, YEC is not canon Augustine had his own hypothesis on Genesis. Finally, I don't see how believing in science is any smaller a step than believing in God. Empiricism is not empirically provable, and has requisite assumptions like personal existence and validity of senses. Great show though.
Comparing the epistemology of faith/religion and science, science has discovered more than any religion or faith. Science has improved life spans and the quality of life. Religion stagnates the human condition.
To put it in perspective for you faith/religion/philosophy/ideology/morality/justice/logic/rationality/ are all found in the same field. Non-physical sciences.
Philosophers for thousands of years have understood this. Your logic is anti logic. Your truth is anti truth and so forth. Quite literally. Truths are relative. Logic is relative. Morality is relative. Science is the denial of human reason, or in the words of C.S. Lewis, "the abolition of man". Collective submission to insanity.
@knowwaie in accordance with you logic, all it takes to learn how to fly(unaided) is the ability to believe you can. I'm sure their are several kids and mentally handicapped people who have tried to fly in the past, did they simply not believe enough? There is a reality and it has proven itself to be empirically understandable. We now live longer, we can communicate instantaneously across the globe, we've learned just a little bit about our place in this universe... all through science.
First of all, i didn't mean science in general. I meant your use of science. No one has any gripe with science. In fact, historically, it was we who invented it. It was stolen and turned into an ideology. So science will make us able to fly (unaided)?
Where are you getting this idea from? The bible? I don't remember it saying we could fly. Or that we can walk on water or move mountains. It specifically says these things are impossible for us..
@knowwaie "Truths are relative. Logic is relative." ~your words. If that were true one would be able to do things that are viewed as illogical and thus prove logic doesn't exist at all.
There is a reality. Not just a prison of primitive superstition. Reality is the past until the present, not the present to the future. The future is still unreality, which is where you base your ideology. The communist technocratic utopia you all dream about.
Put side the misrepresentation of theology and anecdote of your friends jumping off of buildings. Lets talk about the evolution of Cognitive Linguistics. Which is arguably one of the original sciences. Conceptual knowledge in language.
@knowwaie We know there is a reality. Science adjusts its view based on what's observed so that we can see the universe for what it really is rather than what we want it to be. If the hypothesis fails throw it out. There is no use wasting brain cells on something that doesn't work no matter how beautiful i might sound.
So, what? We should remain stagnant in our beliefs rather than try to make the best of the only life we know we have(there may be others but we have this one for sure).
Alright, first of all.. I understand completely what your approach is. All you are saying when defending 'science' (which it really isn't. You're defending a philosophy of science) is that anything can be explained naturally. So in this case all you can say is "language was 'advantatgious' to humans". So what? The fact that something is beneficial doesn't tell us anything but it's result.
There is a lot to be said here. Concepts, while an advantage to us, are a evolutionary fluke, in your view
@knowwaie What happens to be advantageous does arrive at random, true. But mutations occur all the time. Most are benign. If an animal takes on a negative mutation it is less likely to propagate and pass them on to future generations. Mutations that offer even the slightest advantage will prosper. That is what we call natural selection.
I once asked how to explain evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction. The response i received was along the lines of "because it was advantageous". It's a very subtle misconception. Naturally, my response was "did the animals know it was advantageous?".
Point being, there is a difference between explaining the function of a thing and the mechanism which caused the function. Apply this to language. Advantage was not the cause, but the result.
@knowwaie Sex is nature's response to rapid climate change and microscopic predators. By combing my DNA with that of an appropriate mate the resulting offspring has a better chance for survival.
Truth exists objectively whether something is true or not does not depend on someone to observe it as such. Logic is a tool used to uncover truths. Morality stems from our empathetic urges. The reason why what we consider moral has changed over the years is in response to retreating tribal thoughts.
Of course, but from your perspective there is no such thing as absolute truth, there are only relative truths (plural). The idea of a real 'truth' is only found in theology. Even evolution is only a relative truth. Relative to the things that survived. De-evolution and death are also true and equally beneficial...
Come to think of it, the word evolution is also only a conceptual. Evolution is God.
"resulting offspring has a better chance for survival"
@knowwaie Facts might be relative to each other but they are not relative to our perception of them. If that weren't the case science would not provide anything as there would be no such thing as empirical data. There are absolute truths but we aren't going to find them by sitting around comfortable with the idea that our imaginary friend has a trademark on the truth.
Forget about using ad hominem. We're not talking about 'imaginary friends'. We're talking about the evolution of cognition and all imaginary concepts.
Science IS data. Nothing else. That is why i was saying you defend a philosophy. Data can no more determine truth than the times tables. In fact we know even math to be limited. Pi is a good example of the difference between data and truth. In reality there is no such thing as an irrational number. Yet it is still a truth according to the data.
@knowwaie I'm making fun of your beliefs not devaluing your personality(ie: that was not an ad hominem). Science doesn't determine the truth. Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Unlike faith which denies observation so that beliefs might be preserved. Who says there is no such thing as an irrational number? Even what we call imaginary numbers exist and prove themselves useful(although admittedly we don't quite understand what they are).
I know science doesn't determine truth. We do. Through rationalization of information..
That was ad hominem and a straw man and anecdote.
Your argument for evolution are Non sequitur and anecdotal.
There are probably hundreds more used and It never fails.. Fallacious argument are characteristic of atheists from the very beginning. Richard Dawkins 'one god less' and the flying spaghetti monster are straw men. This video is about Argumentum ad populum, consensus gentium authority of science.
@knowwaie We don't determine truths either. We discover truths .But what is true exists regardless of our opinions about it. You've been playing jump rope with the idea since before we started. You tell me that truth is subjective and Then ignore any effort I put into explaining that subjective "truths" are always trumped by objective truths. And science is not an authority. Even you are allowed to question it's discoveries. But if you want to prove them wrong, you'll need better arguments.
No. Truth is rationalized. Logically deduced. The discoveries are only inanimate objects. It's the thinking person who interprets the data.
If you can't follow a thought then i'm wasting my time here. You at least understand where i'm going with this? I understand your position. It's been shown by videos like these and millions of others that you really don't know what i'm talking about. Do you get it or not? It's really quite simple. Your "science" is a logic. A philosophical rationale.
@knowwaie Whether someone is thinking about it or not has no bearing on what facts really are. I might believe that you are actually an AI created for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation. But in reality The theory that you are just another ill informed human being is much more probable.
I'm deducing that you believe that if you can make science look just as silly as religion that somehow means you win. Am I right?
"you can make science look just as silly as religion that somehow means you win.?"
You're joking right?.. Is there something wrong with you?... In ancient Greece, philosophy was science. I'm stating a historical fact. Science itself was not a physical science. The purpose of this demonstration isn't to 'belittle' you as your strange psychosis would lead you to believe, but that you are being brainwashed by a philosophy, and a self refuting one. You claim there is no logic, while using logic.
@knowwaie And what type of logic to you use? Science is an open field of study. There are no authorities in science. Sure we can defer to the experts in fields we do not understand. But scrutiny of it's findings is not only allowed but encouraged. You just need substantial empirical evidence that point out where prevailing theories fail and provide a new hypothesis to explain it. We make progress with science because we carefully examine everything; and if a hypothesis fails, we move on.
You're confused is because you're not familiar with logic. I'm defending your, and the average person's, ability to reason independently. Either information is determined rationally and logically or empirically. You are arguing that all knowledge is only empirical. But if you've been paying attention we've already determined that knowledge is also conceptual, in fact, all knowledge is conceptual. This is why the sciences are called "logy" the fields of science are literally called logics.. Duh?
@knowwaie No, you have been arguing that truths are conceptual. Truths are empirical and whether we know about them or not doesn't matter. Information can be gathered on one's own through rationality and logic. But personal testimony can be hindered by too many things. This is why science examines itself and the world around us. The only way to know what real truths are is to rigorously test our knowledge. The idea that truths are conceptual is ludicrous.
We test or knowledge through logical consistency. Data tells us nothing at all. It's not possible. All you are saying is science deals with empirical data. No kidding! Did you honestly think that philosophy doesn't deal with physical data? It does. The physical world is something that we all agree on. It's the interpretation of it that is an issue here. The self contradiction is obvious when you emphasize the physical over the logical. By who's logic?
@knowwaie If data tells us nothing at all, we wouldn't be living in the world we are today. If science were as backwards as religion we'd be divided to the same extent religions are. Even sects of the same religion have formed because no one can agree on how their holy script should be interpreted. With science the data is black and white. Sure you have few dense people who argue that the earth is flat, but the evidence is clearly against them.
@knowwaie Well, you obviously have some education; I won't argue that. But the world is filled with misinformation. And you are only helping to spread it. I can only hope that this species wises up in time before we end up really screwing ourselves over.
Look, instead of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you to be misinformed or fantasizing about an invisible friend, just look for yourself.. You're trying desperately to remain ignorant of the subject. I'm not talking about 'intelligent design' or 'creationism'. You're attacking the people who are obviously not as educated on the subject.. You really think Kirk Cameron is the best source of information on the subject?.. None of us do either, it's common fucking sense.
@knowwaie I've watched some creationist speeches and many creationist debates. Their entire premise is based on ignorance, logical fallacies, and lies(from quote-mining to pseudoscience). They never provide an once of evidence in their favor. And they argue evolution by lumping in astronomy, geology and abiogenesis as if they were all the same thing. If you have a video you think would "educate" please point me in it's direction.
I swear that this is exactly the case. You deliberately try to remain as ignorant as possible. Every atheist i've ever spoken to is depressingly ignorant of the real issue. Even though all the information is easily available to them.. But they all avoid it calling it 'misinformation'.
Someone wrote about this subject in the 40s in a book called The Abolition of man, by C.S. Lewis. The audio book is on youtube. You may not understand it, but that is how rational thought works.
@knowwaie This creationist movement is doing more for atheism than anything else. Once people actually look at the information themselves and recognize the disingenuous tactics deployed by creationists, it's no wonder why people are turning away from religion. You don't have to be atheist to accept evolution.
I just said i'm not talking about creationism or intelligent design. These are people who are on the defensive who don't really know what the issue is. The reason they don't know is because YOU have been running the show for the past 80 years. You control education, the universities, the dictionary publishers. We are already fucked over. If you weren't so brain dead you'd stop living in the fucking past and look at the world. Are you really so insane that you think creationists are the threat?
@knowwaie 50% of the American population believe that BS. And because of reasons I just mentioned, yes I do see it as a threat. Many of us kept our heads down over the whole creation debate because it is so silly that of course people will come to realize it for what it is. That hasn't happened. And creationists are getting more aggressive sneaking crap into textbooks and trying to make it look like they have a valid argument.
It doesn't matter what people believe you retard.. Is there something wrong with you? Seriously..
No matter if 90% of the people believed creation, you still control the education. They could believe that a tooth fairy leaves money under their pillows. It doesn't matter as long as they are all DOING the same thing. Every one of us have already subjetivized our language and lost the ability to reason properly. And this is all YOUR doing. You know nothing about the real world. It's pathetic.
@knowwaie I've found our conversation both amusing and depressing. I'm headed to work. Seriously Take another good look at our conversation before you go. Take care.
Good luck fighting American freedom. The communist revolution will finally end the stupid American idea of Independence.. And they weren't successful anyway right? America is messed up today because of religion and it was successful in the beginning because of communism.. Isn't that right?
@knowwaie Who have you spoke to about this? I am an atheist and I support Dr. Ron Paul in the upcoming presidential election. Your communism and atheism link are like poor attack ads that have no validity and doesn't explain your god's view that man should give away all his material riches. the latter sounds like communism to me.
I assure you the link is very real. Historically as well as logically.
I understand that there are all sorts of compromises between these views.. I have also met people who are theists and defend socialism from the bible. Though they are completely wrong. The whole idea of personal possession, inheritance and even the hierarchical structure are well established theologically speaking. There are even ranks of angels in hierarchies. Atheists tend to think that these were all control mechanisms.
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It is a statement about a single issue. The issue is: "Do you believe that there is a god or gods?" And the statement is: "No, I don't believe there is a god or gods."
That's it. That's all Atheism is. And therefore it is not a philosophy nor an ideology.
I know how this works, athe'ists' say they have no philosophy.. I believe them. A philosophy entails thought..
Athe!'>"ism'"<! is exactly an ideology. Then the aspect of studying the world from the perspective of atheism is a philosophy.
Language doesn't change meaning when people disagree with it unfortunately.. The powers that be have always had an atheistic faction even since ancient Greece. It was one of the philosophies then and still is now, even if we're brainwashed to think otherwise.
How could one statement about one issue possibly be an ideology? It does in no way tell you what to do and how to behave, what's good and what's bad, it doesn't even tell you what you should and shouldn't believe and how to go about studying the world!
An Atheist can be a liberal or a conservative, pro life or pro choice, someone who tries to gain knowledge through science or someone who tries to gain knowledge through trance, meditation, summoning spirits, tarrot cards, etc...
Semantics.. You're trying to argue as if history had no part it's development. There were events in history which lead up to the point where you are saying "we are only atheists". That is not how it began. What you seen now is blatant brainwashing. You're trained to parrot the words as if you are a new species who have no roots in history, as if reality began with the television, or when you were born (as is commonly stated). But there is a real world where atheism is idealized and propagated.
"An Atheist can be a liberal or a conservative, gain knowledge through science or someone who tries to gain knowledge through trance, meditation, summoning spirits, tarrot cards, etc.."
In fact, you're neglecting to apply your own logic here. The real history shows that you are correct. In the past there were atheists who were mystics, conjurers and alchemists. The hippies were commonly atheists and they knew all about meditation.
Learning history and language will break this hypnosis.
"In fact, you're neglecting to apply your own logic here..."
What are you talking about? And why would you agree with my point one sentence after you've told me that I'm neglecting to apply my own logic? Care to elaborate?
We both know that what i'm saying here is true. Your philosophy is already the dominant power. But you're all so brainwashed that you're still imagining the threat of religion, when it Doesn't Even Exist anymore. All that is left are a few stragglers trying to defend themselves with an already distorted language and ideology. Do you honestly think that religion is a threat to you? You are absolute bat shit insane.. Which is the intention. To abolish independent thought. Logic is obsolete.
It's crazy how you really have no arguments. Every time resort to first, anecdotal misuse and ignorance or theology, set it up as a straw man, then attack it with ad hominem. Then complain about how the future is doomed because strawmen are a threat to your fragile, yet, evolving world.. Do you really not see yourself doing these things?
In reality, the screwing over already happened. Humans lost reasoning capability 60 years ago to relative thought. There is no objective rationality anymore.
@knowwaie I'm not straw-manning anything. I've seen the "fruits" of faith. Believing in things without proper evidence sets people up to be conned out of their money and often put their own lives in danger. It happens all the time(spiritual healers, the catholic church teaching people in Africa not to use condoms, 9-11...).
In the real world, that place outside of your head.. Western civilization has given way to the eastern philosophy. Darwinism, Freudian, Marxism. These three guys were friends, and your friends. You're the assholes we've been trying to defend ourselves against. Richard Dawkin's great great uncle was one of the British enemies of the United States. It's not coincidence at all that all your spokes people are from foreign counties. The reason none of this is apparent to you is called brainwashing.
@knowwaie PZ Myers trumps all of our "spokes people". Besides, all these people are just men. Anything they say I check against secular sources. Because like all men they make mistakes and occasionally make the same mistakes creationists do.
Is it true that the American public education has been in the hands of your leaders for at least the past 80 years? PZ Myers is a teacher isn't he?..
If there is one thing you need to get through your head it's the actually state of the present world. You're even in denial about this. Do you know what Marxism is and where it comes from? I bet you even have absolutely not clue what your own philosophy stands for. It's so gross that i literally makes my physically sick.
In the real world, you are the people who we've been fighting. Soviet Russia, Communist china. Eastern philsophy. That is where YOU Come From. Do you know about all this?.. Maybe you do, maybe you're a willful follower of the Communist revolution. Most of you are just brainwashed drones who don't know your ass from your elbows.
@knowwaie Mhm, because people kill each other all day, every day, so that they can survive. I don't know if you are one to think this, but I was certainly surprised by how many people think that atheists believe that.
See, this is how retarded you have to be to be an atheist today. You don't know what you're talking about. You're arguing that you're using logic and that there is no logic at the exact same time. It's actually complete insanity. You deny your own ability to reason, submit to the methodology of another's rational, then deny that any rationale was involved. It's disgusting.. If the ancient philosophers were alive today they would laugh at you. You are using logic against logic. Complete madness.
@knowwaie Once again I don't deny that we do rationalize the world around. We do use logic to determine our understanding of it. However truths exist independent of our understanding of them. You are the one who's been stating that truths are conceptual and ignoring that the implications of such a statement means to deny reality all together.
The worst part is, i need only point you to a saying from Dawkins. In response to a person explaining that the evolution theory and all that is attached to are not empirical, Dawkins said 'we have other means of finding truth indirectly'. This is called rationalization. So it is fucking admitted to you morons that the theory is implicitly reasoned and mostly hypothetical (i.e. IF [hypothetically] there is no god, then a certain logical format follows). You are following the format blindly.
@knowwaie You don't have to see truths to measure their effect. For example if prayer granted wishes we would have substantial proof of the existence of a god(or perhaps some other supernatural phenomenon). If it were only the prayers of a particular sect which were answered we might call that the "true" religion. God wouldn't have to show up himself in order for us to know of his existence. It's a simple concept.
"By combing my DNA with that of an appropriate mate the resulting offspring has a better chance for survival."
"What happens to be advantageous does arrive at random"
That's right, the 'better chance for survival' wasn't the reason why they evolved. It's was entirely random then nature selected the random mutation. This is exactly what i'm talking about. The evolution defenders are using a very subtle psychological trick. You argue the benefits of survival rather then the actual evolution.
@knowwaie I've already covered this. Mutations are random but the reason why certain traits exist is because they were more advantageous than traits that weren't. You can pick 5 wild horses and race them against each other. One of them will win. There is no training involved. No waving of a magic wand. One random horse will be faster than the other horse and that is advantageous for survival.
Thirdly, to give my argument again in it's correct context. Over the past 5,000 years there has been no lack of cognition. Our ability to think comes from conceptualization of language created by primitive people who "project themselves into the sky", or in proper English, thought there were real absolutes like "truth" and "logic" and "morality". The thing in the sky was reality that is not here.
In other words, God, whether real or imagined, was still the source of all human cognition.
If there is no god then our imagination of god created us. Maybe not physically but mentally. It was a huge mistake for atheists to argue against morality. Since almost everything falls under this category. Truth and logic being also relative in this sense have no objective existence. They exist only in our minds. But to a theist, they are absolute, not in the sense of always being the same, but of being real regardless of our miss / application.
Long story short. Language did not evolve, which is why the atheist will most likely dismiss all of history as primitive superstition rather than confront it. Even though it was that history which 'evolved' us to where we are now.. It's strange isn't it? As if you all believe evolution ceased through 4,000 years of human history.
Language and communication require conceptualization. This is why the vast majority of our words describe nonphysical entities. 'Human evolution' is a paradox.
@knowwaie Language did evolve. It's important for any social animal to have the means to communicate. Historians are scientists too. It is their job to uncover what actually happened and what is just BS. As for any information that is not found outside of its canon text, we can safely conclude that it did not happen. Evolution is and ongoing process. Speciation however takes hundreds of thousands of years. I'm no stranger to concepts, but wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
Let me digress for a moment and remind you, speciation does not even take that long.. I've been saying for years that you're all exaggerating this in order to fit billions of years. It's possible to have a new species in less than 4 generations. About 60 years.
Historians used to say that Egypt was the oldest civilization because of their language was 'primitive'. Now we know they were about the 5th. Evolution of language could not be show in history. Unless you make shit up, which you do.
@knowwaie If speciation only took 4 generations we wouldn't be able to breed with other people around the world. we would be able to crossbreed dogs(as different as the might appear a Chihuahua and a Leonberger are both the same species).
When I speak of language evolving I'm speaking of the need for language among other social animals as well as our own.
So.. We have three things at work here. The brain that is able to understand language (which isn't as simple as you like to think). The tongue and voice box able to communicate language. Then the language itself. Which of these came first?
I'll just put it this way, for the sake of argument.. Religion, whether true or false, was the source of language. As much as you lunatics attack it (as if evolution ceased through human history) God is the concept that made conceptual language possible.
@knowwaie Religion was mankind's first attempt at philosophy and science. The easiest way to explain the unknown is to project oneself into the sky(which doesn't explain anything at all).
Which came first? Obviously the brain is where communication begins. However, the vocal chords and tongue are tools for survival and might have come about independent of the need for language. Adapting these tools for language has been a great asset, but most communication occurs through body language.
@ThePythagoran because science has evidence an atheism? leading to jihad what the fuck..i could point to 200million pagen native americans killed by christians over 400 years as a direct result of christianity or you could point to commy russia where it killed 100million because of communism but just happened to be atheist because chruchs mosuqes and temples could be used as meeting places for rebels atheism is not a doctirne or a beleif its the lack of one
@WilliamTelevision Antony Flew was converted due to Intelligent Design arguments, not biblical study. And afterwards he admitted to have not stayed up to date on the studies in Abiogenesis and how the arguments made by Behe had already been refuted. He is a modest deist, a slight defect from his former Atheism but not Christian.
Regardless of what our political agendas, all you have to say is, "Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance." That's all. - Neil deGrasse Tyson
OK, the intellectually dishonest just hit it the fan. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT. ABIOGENISIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION IS NOT BASED ON ABIOGENESIS!
CITE THE BOOK. IF YOU POST AGAIN WITHOUT CITING YOU WILL BE BLOCK. LAST WARNING!!
Creation isn't science period. Most people who push try to find evidence for Creation. That is not how the scientific method works. Science work on the principle of here is the evidence we have observed, what can we hypothesize based on the evidence we have, lets test it and continue to test it. Creation is faith based belief. There is no testing. Its here is our assumption and lets change or lie about the evidence to support it.
@CRaschNet I completely agree, Creation "Science" (Pseudoscience.) is all about them looking for evidence anywhere to support them, when real science is not based on its merit by its ability to fabricate proof supporting it, but its ability to withstand peer reviewed scrutiny. Which evolution does and has for a hundred years.
The suffix ology after refers to a science. The'ology' is also a science, but not 'accredited' since it is not a physical science, and admittedly is not... Psychology is a science, but not a physical science, in the same way.
What is paraded as 'evolutionary biology' is the philosophy of order from chaos. Why do you think big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology are so contingent?.. Yet you lunatics will continually complain that these are separate fields. Stupid?
True, but the problem is that no one is willing to scientifically debate evolution. People treat it as if its a law.
iKhanKing 3 days ago
Hitting religion with science is like hitting a glass swan with a brick: though the pieces are still there, but, in the end, it's a bunch of shit.
TheOkami1113 1 week ago
"Nazi scientists tortured plenty of people XD" but hitler was a Young Earth Creationist Roman Catholic and German public service was preceded by an oath of loyalty to the fuhrer which invoked the name of God.
WxsOnline 1 week ago 2
@WxsOnline Hitler was not a true catholic. He only "converted" for political reasons. There is evidence that hitler was planning to wipe out the catholic and christian religions once he assumed full power. Hitler was hard core Atheist
jonnyneo53 6 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Read Mein Kampf.
Then get back to us.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred In 'Mein Kampf' and in public speeches he often made statements which affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted a "positive Christianity" purged of Judaism and instilled with Nazi philosophy. According to the collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled 'Hitler's Table Talk', as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity.
/watch?v=yba8XXZYrXs
jonnyneo53 3 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Thank you for proving my point.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Your point was?
jonnyneo53 3 days ago
@jonnyneo53 That while Hitler had a negative view of Christianity, he did believe in God. He was not a hardcore atheist.
As you just said, he felt that Christianity had been corrupted and that he was working on behalf of an existing God.
One must also aknowledge his interest in the Occult; something an atheist would certainly not have.
The extent of his belief is of course debatable - and likely always will be - but what cannot be debated is that Hitler DID in fact believe in God.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Ok, I concede that perhaps he believed in God, but my main point was that he exploited Chirstianity in order to gain power. I say that in response to people who say "Hitler was Christian" in order to talk bad about religion.
jonnyneo53 3 days ago
@jonnyneo53 And perhaps to an extent, he did. The man was delusional and acted accordingly.
However, what one must also keep in mind is that Hitler was in fact motivated by whatever religion or God he percieved in his mind, and it allowed him a personal justification for his actions. Just as the Crusades prove that even the most humble religion can be justification for violence.
Irrationality always carries with it a risk of danger. Hitler or not; religion is dangerous.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Ive heard Atheists say that there should be a crusade to kill all religious people in order to preserve the human race from the "Dangers of Religion". Atheism can be just as dangerous as the religious fanatics.
jonnyneo53 3 days ago
@jonnyneo53 "I've heard atheists say..."
Cute. I'm not very up-to-date on all of the official "fallacies", but I bet that's one of them.
Throughout history, millions have died by those who truly felt they were doing their particular god's work. Millions. However, not a single person has died in the name of an empty cosmos.
No, Atheism is not equally as dangerous as religion. It's idiotic for you to even suggest it.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred How is that a fallacy? Ive litteraly heard them say and have seen comments of Atheist saying to kill Religious people. Mark my words, one day, people will get so tired of Religion that there will be a world-wide persecution of Religious people with the goal of permanently ending all Religions.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 It's a fallacy because you're asserting that, because a few atheists can become so fed-up from time to time that they suggest we just eliminate all believers, this somehow means that Atheism is just as dangerous as religion itself.
No. Simply no. As I said, millions have been hacked to death with swords and machetes by attackers who were screaming the name of their God.
Nobody has done this in the name of Atheism. Nobody.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Fine, ill apply your fallacy to you then. It's a fallacy because you're asserting that, because a some religious fanatics can become so fed-up from time to time that they just eliminate some non-believers throughout history, this somehow means that all religions are dangerous.
Some Atheists can be as dangerous as some religious fanatics.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 And yet, you're failing to see the glaring point. One that I've been making since we began speaking.
Religion's body count is in the millions.
Atheism's body count is nil.
No, I'm not making a logical fallacy, because religion has killed millions in recorded history, whereas Atheism has killed none. This shows quite clearly that religion - and it's irrationality - is inherantly dangerous. This has never been shown with Atheism.
I'm sorry, but religion loses in this game.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Yea..... No. Just as there are Religious fanatics, there are Atheistic fanatics. Phycopaths and Sociopaths by Nature are incapable of empathy, guilt, or emotions. Things that are needed to have a belief in God. So by definition Phycopaths and Sociopaths are Atheists. Atheists body counts are plenty as well, my friend.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Yes, and there are chocolate-loving sociopaths, and dog-loving sociopaths, and, believe it or not, God-loving sociopaths. This brings us back to the Hitler argument, but we can also assert David Koresh or Jim Jones as examples. Even Son of Sam and Charles Manson.
I say again, nobody has killed in the name of an empty cosmos (or chocolate; or dogs). MANY have killed in the name of God.
You're quickly becoming dense. Please try to refrain.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred U'd be surprised how many people have been killed in the name of Chocolate. And yeah, I totally pulled that Sociopath arguement out of my ass. But my point still stands, Atheistic fanatics can be as Dangerous as Religious fanatics. You simply don't know if anyone out there has been killed simply for being religious. On a large scale though, not YET.
And stop calling me cute. Im getting uncomfortable....
.
.
.
.
and arroused...
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Your point does not stand, because it has nothing to back it up. Even just now, you've admited that nobody has been killed in the name of atheism on a large scale. This is true, but it implies that perhaps some have been killed on a painfully small scale. I concede that perhaps that is true, but this also suggests that anyone who's been beaten in an alley for being religious was beaten by those who were already sociopathic anyway. Their supposed atheism would be completely
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 (Part 2) circumstancial. That was my point with dog-lovers and chocolate-lovers. "Well maybe some people have been killed by atheists", yeah, and maybe some people have been killed by die-hard Corvette lovers, too. It says nothing about the Corvette, or about chocolate, or about dogs, or about Atheism.
History does not lie. MILLIONS (I'll repeate yet again) have died directly and specifically because of religion.
Religion has thus proven itself as MUCH more of a threat than a lack
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 (Part 3) of a belief in God. It's really very simple. You can twist and contort and "pull facts out of your ass" all you want, but the evidence is clear. Religion is an incredibly easy way to justify slaughtering droves of people. Atheism is not. It has not been, and I'm going to bet it will never be.
Accept it or don't. The choice is yours and is of no consequence to me.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Oh, it will happen on a large scale. You know how sick people are of religion? One day some religious nut will do something stupid, and it'll be the straw that broke the cammels back. Then we'll see Atheists kill for 'Natural Selection' and the survival of the human race.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 An argument based on future events that may or may not take place?
Now THAT is a fallacy is I've ever seen one.
"My 3-year-old son might be a pedophile one day. Do you realize how many children grow up to be pedophiles? Odds are, he's going to be one too. Thus, my son is a pedophile. Not only that, but all children are equally as dangerous as grown pedophiles because they have the potential to molest children one day."
Grow up.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred No, its actually based on Bible prophecy. and Bible prophecies have been fulfilled many times.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Name a single prophecy that could not have - in any way, shape, or form - been prophesied by any jackoff who got the idea to write a few lines of scripture and call it "God's word".
Nostrodamus predicted one or two things accurately as well. On the whole, however, both he and your Bible fail to live up to the hype.
We're now making arguments from scripture (after all else has failed), which is one of the worst things a theist can do. Tread lightly.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred (a) Aw, I can only name 1 prophecy? Fine.
Prophecy- (Isaiah 44:24,27,28; 45:1-4) Reads as follows:
“Jehovah . . . the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up’; the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’ ...
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred (b) ...This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut: ‘Before you I myself shall go, and the swells of land I shall straighten out. ...
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred (c) ... The copper doors I shall break in pieces, and the iron bars I shall cut down. . . . For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I even proceeded to call you by your name.’”
Writing by Isaiah was completed by about 732 B.C.E. This prophecy was written about 200 years before these events actually happened.
Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. The Jews were not taken into exile to Babylon until 617-607 B.C.E., ...
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Once again, this is a vague reference to something that any man during the time of writing could have predicted. This does not scream "supernatural" or "divine" in any way. Try again.
On a side note, to my knowledge, the only Bible to reference the name of Jehovah is the NWT. Would you happen to be a Witness?
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Ha! You're honestly saying that all that excrutiating detail is "Vague"? You sir, are either dishonest or foolish.
and BTW, The King James Bible, American Standard Version Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version Bible, and Webster's Bible Translation all say Jehovah.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Yes, it is vague. Why? Because it's not "excruciating detail", firstly, and secondly, what little we can now interpret as being referenced could have been easily predicted by any man of that time.
Once again, I ask you to give me a reference to a prophecy that can only have a supernatural explanation. The Bible predicts that wars will be waged and believers will be persecuted and that dramatic things will happen.
If looked at objectively, these things are no-brainers. Obviously
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred 1) Cyrus had not been born when the prophecy was written. What a HUGE coincidence that a man named Cyrus brought down Babylon.
2) The rivers were to be dried up. What a HUGE coincidence that Cyrus diverted the waters and dried up the rivers.
3) The gates were to be open. What a HUGE coincidence that the gates were carlessly left open during the Babylonian feast.
4) The temple was jerusalem was to be rebuilt. What a HUGE coincidence that Cyrus ....
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred .... instructed them to Rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
5) At the Beggining of this specific prophecy, at chapter 13, Isaiah clearly states that it would be Babylon who would fall. Babylon wasnt even in Power at the time. What a HUGE coincidence that Cyrus invaded Babylon.
6) Chapter 13 also states that it would be the Medes and Persians who would do the invading. What a HUGE coincidence that Cyrus commanded the Persian and Medes army. .....
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred ..... Sorry if your too delusional to rationally see that No mere man could have predicted something with such accuracy if not for the Insiration of God himself.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 I have to at this point admit that I do not know enough about the historical accuracy of this particular event. As a result, I cannot sufficiently refute it.
However, you seem to have been disappointed that I asked for a single prophecy. By all means, feel free to provide more.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Go to wikipedia, type in 'Babylon' and scroll down to 'Persia Captures Babylon'. Sure, ill provide more prophecies.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeedsOfHatred Go to wikipedia, type in 'Babylon' and scroll down to 'Persia Captures Babylon'. Sure, ill explain more prophecies.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeedsOfHatred Go to wikipedia, type in 'Babylon' and scroll down to 'Persia Captures Babylon'. Sure, ill explain more prophecies.
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 (Part 2) people are going to go to war with one another. Obviously believers are going to be opposed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a man of God) to predict that.
WHat would have been impressive is a Biblical reference to DNA or the Black Plague.
Or even to the Crusades, which you claim were carried out by men who had twisted God's word. Surely God would have opposed such perversion of his word and would have warned us not to let it stumble us.
And yet, he doesn't.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeedsOfHatred (d) ... and Jerusalem and its temple were not destroyed until 607 B.C.E. . In detail the prophecy was fulfilled starting in 539 B.C.E. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River into an artificial lake and dried up the Euphrates river ("the One saying to the watery deep, ‘Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up"),, the river gates of Babylon were carelessly left open during feasting in the city, ...
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeedsOfHatred (e) ...("to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut"), and Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians under Cyrus ("This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations"). Thereafter, Cyrus liberated the Jewish exiles and sent them back to Jerusalem with instructions to rebuild God’s temple there. ...
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred (f) ... ("the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple").
Enough precision for you?
jonnyneo53 2 days ago
@jonnyneo53 I have to point out, though, that I like how you desperately tried to label sociopaths as atheists in order to have some kind of hold on your position (as fallacious as it was).
It was cute. Desperate and rather laughable, but cute.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
Christian science is bullcrap. Either be a real Christian, or don't be. This newfangled "riding on the fence" "Cristian science" is stupid. I'm guessing that is what he's reffering to, although he's also opposed to regular Christianity. In that case, one cannot argue that non-believers never tortured believers. Nazis tortured Jews much worse, The USSR tortured Christians heavily, in many parts of Asia, like in rural/poor Indonesia owners of bibles are killed. Arguement goes both ways i suppose
SuperSneakySniper 3 weeks ago
@SuperSneakySniper he never says non-believers never tortured believers
AlexRider001 3 weeks ago
@AlexRider001 Oh yeah I know. I was jus' saying that he mentioned that believers tortured non-believers, without mentioning that non-believers also tortured believers just as much if not moreso. That's all, so technically, that "Tourture" point he wrote under "Creationalism" also belongs under "Evolution" evenly. But hey, it's a free country, one can say whatever one wants really XD
SuperSneakySniper 3 weeks ago
@SuperSneakySniper but you're missing the point again... he's not comparing believers and non-believers
he's comparing the two approaches to science - so in essence he's comparing scientists to christians
remind me of the last time biologists or physicists tortured anybody please...
AlexRider001 3 weeks ago
@AlexRider001 Oh cool ty for clearing that up. AHA! okay so he's comparing scientists to Christians. TY for clearing that up, it makes more sense now. But hey, Nazi scientists tortured plenty of people XD
SuperSneakySniper 3 weeks ago
@SuperSneakySniper haha fuck you always find a loophole :D
AlexRider001 3 weeks ago
@AlexRider001 hehehe XP
SuperSneakySniper 3 weeks ago
@AlexRider001 Well maybe some scientists have tortured some people but the crusades were justified to be morally correct. Imagine if we thought Nazi's were heroes because a book told us that an unobservable being told them to do it.
AkumaADemoncus 2 weeks ago
@AkumaADemoncus well ... that's basically what happened in Nazi Germany ^^
AlexRider001 2 weeks ago
love this video. Just Ask Family Guy Creationism<Retards
RottingCorpse100 2 months ago
this is sickening and thats why there going to hell lol or nothingness or what ever lolololololololololo
risentru 2 months ago
@risentru I like how you managed to fit 4/5 things in less than a complete sentence from the non science section that was listed in the video. That takes a special kind of stupid.
xynth101088 2 months ago
you mad cus you make up imaginary places to threaten smart people with
iliveon 1 month ago
I call this video a win for Humans and an embarrassing loss for creationism. LOL creationism
699backstab 2 months ago
Christ, Teller's a talkative fucker. I've only seen speech bubbles that full in a Tim Buckley comic strip.
KajexFiredrake 2 months ago
Nor is Darwinism.
saintoccasionally 2 months ago
@saintoccasionally
"Nor is Darwinism"
What is Darwinism?
boyinthedrain 1 month ago
evolution IS ¨theory¨ not ¨LAW¨(LIKE MOSES/gravity)of human¨genesis¨.facts do AND do NOT support it unless bent to propagate bias(it´s true!)
some science facts vs actual facts:
city of Troy a myth - Troy an ACTUAL city
900 ton stones cannot be cut/moved v trilithon stones that WERE cut AND moved AND raised up 50ft
homo sapien from chimp line - NO link(s)or¨facts¨to support ¨theory¨
Oldest sapiens circa 1-300,000BC - Bible ancestral date 6000BC(that IS Before CHRIST)eg summaria
´nuff said
only1too 2 months ago
@only1too You do realize that Einstein's THEORY of relativity explains gravity a lot better than Newton's LAWS of Gravitation does, right? "Theory" in science means something a lot different than you think it does.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. We observe animals changing over time (fossil record and lab). This is a fact. The THEORY of evolution is how these animals change over time. The same is true for gravity. We observe gravity. This is fact. How we explain it is the theory.
DeadFishFactory 2 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
fossils r fact; who,what,when etc they are are linked to sapien IS a theory; speculative hypothesis of supposition based on assumption of facts AT HAND which CAN have more than one theory of why/how the whole big bang came to be.
gravity & light r observable fact.theories how they work abound ergo theories thereof- which are constantly in flux as we observe more of micro/macro cosmos.explain what we CAN/HAVE observed but NOT definitive as we accept much is still unrevealed
only1too 2 months ago
@only1too You are still confusing a scientific theory to the layman definition of theory.
Fossils are a fact--yes, we observe them. How we explain them is the theory, yes. It's not speculative at all considering that many of the traits of fossils are direct predictions of evolution. For example, evolution predicts that the older the fossils are, the more "simple" they would be. That is what we see.
DeadFishFactory 2 months ago
@DeadFishFactory
p.s. still doesn´t refute FACTS(which still stump ¨scientists¨)stated about Troy,trilithon stones,or 1st human civilization; which popped into existence 6000yrs ago-as stated in Bible- without pre-cursor/amble or links to less developed civs(as would be required of¨the theory¨) yet had written language,laws,institutions,stunning architecture & EVEN GOD(s) ie. understanding of spiritual matters!?! we´re not just electro-chemical meat bags as some would have us believe....
only1too 2 months ago
@only1too No precursor? Are you high? And even if the Bible predicts that this civilization pops in 6000 years ago, it only shows me that you don't even know your own religion. 6,000 years ago was when God created the Earth and the heaven right? So you're claiming that this city was already here at the time God created Earth. Yet this was supposed to be the time where the only humans on Earth were Adam and Eve.
I'm disappoint that you don't know your own myth.
DeadFishFactory 2 months ago
@only1too Evolution is a fact. We can, and have, observed it happening, in both controlled and uncontrolled enviroments. There are no "missing links" that supposedly debunk theory of evolution. Not a single one. As deadfishfactory pointed out to you, "theory" is one of the highest grades of certainty a scientific principle can get.
omgwtfbbqxD 2 months ago
@omgwtfbbqxD
word theory doesn´t change for science.there are lots of missing links from species to species & within species which evo puts down to another ¨theory¨;¨accelerated evolution¨.leaps & bounds that would embarrass superman- & withOUT proof.within human ancestral line are no,repeat,no link(s) from chimp (closet relative apparently) to man, erectus(APE-like primate)to sapien.why in the early 20thC A.D. ¨scientists¨came up w/ piltdown, java etc. links? bad history research on your part
only1too 2 months ago
@only1too
You've said: "word theory doesn´t change for science."
Actually it does. Just check out this homepage here:
w w w . notjustatheory . c o m
It presents a short but accurate explanation what the difference is between the meaning of the word "theory" in science and how it differs form the laymans definition of a theory.
Btw.: Just because scientists made some mistakes in the past doesn't devaluate science in any way, nor does it confirm your fairy tale (=The Bible),
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
@only1too You're the one doing bad research. Evolution accounts for these "missing links". In fact, they were expected. A few missing bits here and there don't make it any less a fact. We have a very nice fossil record on whales, and many other species. And even without the entire fossil record, it would still be a fact, as we have observed it happening in laboratories, and in nature.
omgwtfbbqxD 2 months ago 2
@omgwtfbbqxD
Fossils are a fact.Linking them in an order- which becomes very broken very quickly- is a theory trying to explain how fossils became man or a theory called evolution; a hypothesis based on the supposition of the assumption that all things came from one source,hence the tree model ie.¨theory¨
Except findings are proving life formed from multiple points,in a very short time & what exists now is actually a far less varied variety of life.The ¨tree of life¨has been tuned upside down
only1too 2 months ago
they should stick with what they know- bad jokes and parlour tricks...wait, that´s alot like evolution ¨theory¨....
have a piltdownsyndrome day boys
only1too 2 months ago
creation.com
take a look.
jonescomplete 2 months ago
Wow......I really don't know what else to say.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
there right too
AquaticWizardKiddy 2 months ago
First, every worldview that has gained popular traction, including atheism, has been used by the controllers of states for evil, bolshevism, crusade, jihad, caste system, could keep going. Second, YEC is not canon Augustine had his own hypothesis on Genesis. Finally, I don't see how believing in science is any smaller a step than believing in God. Empiricism is not empirically provable, and has requisite assumptions like personal existence and validity of senses. Great show though.
ThePythagoran 3 months ago
@ThePythagoran
Comparing the epistemology of faith/religion and science, science has discovered more than any religion or faith. Science has improved life spans and the quality of life. Religion stagnates the human condition.
CRaschNet 3 months ago
To put it in perspective for you faith/religion/philosophy/ideology/morality/justice/logic/rationality/ are all found in the same field. Non-physical sciences.
Philosophers for thousands of years have understood this. Your logic is anti logic. Your truth is anti truth and so forth. Quite literally. Truths are relative. Logic is relative. Morality is relative. Science is the denial of human reason, or in the words of C.S. Lewis, "the abolition of man". Collective submission to insanity.
knowwaie 3 months ago
@knowwaie This is the most psychopathic, self-rightous, anti-intellectual comment it has ever been my dishonor to read.
GarlicPudding 2 months ago
I know. It's a cray world.
You're so brainwashed that you can't even understand what's being said.
Go learn a little and smarten up.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie in accordance with you logic, all it takes to learn how to fly(unaided) is the ability to believe you can. I'm sure their are several kids and mentally handicapped people who have tried to fly in the past, did they simply not believe enough? There is a reality and it has proven itself to be empirically understandable. We now live longer, we can communicate instantaneously across the globe, we've learned just a little bit about our place in this universe... all through science.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
First of all, i didn't mean science in general. I meant your use of science. No one has any gripe with science. In fact, historically, it was we who invented it. It was stolen and turned into an ideology. So science will make us able to fly (unaided)?
Where are you getting this idea from? The bible? I don't remember it saying we could fly. Or that we can walk on water or move mountains. It specifically says these things are impossible for us..
So by what logic are you speaking? It's not clear
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie "Truths are relative. Logic is relative." ~your words. If that were true one would be able to do things that are viewed as illogical and thus prove logic doesn't exist at all.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
There is a reality. Not just a prison of primitive superstition. Reality is the past until the present, not the present to the future. The future is still unreality, which is where you base your ideology. The communist technocratic utopia you all dream about.
Put side the misrepresentation of theology and anecdote of your friends jumping off of buildings. Lets talk about the evolution of Cognitive Linguistics. Which is arguably one of the original sciences. Conceptual knowledge in language.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie We know there is a reality. Science adjusts its view based on what's observed so that we can see the universe for what it really is rather than what we want it to be. If the hypothesis fails throw it out. There is no use wasting brain cells on something that doesn't work no matter how beautiful i might sound.
So, what? We should remain stagnant in our beliefs rather than try to make the best of the only life we know we have(there may be others but we have this one for sure).
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Alright, first of all.. I understand completely what your approach is. All you are saying when defending 'science' (which it really isn't. You're defending a philosophy of science) is that anything can be explained naturally. So in this case all you can say is "language was 'advantatgious' to humans". So what? The fact that something is beneficial doesn't tell us anything but it's result.
There is a lot to be said here. Concepts, while an advantage to us, are a evolutionary fluke, in your view
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie What happens to be advantageous does arrive at random, true. But mutations occur all the time. Most are benign. If an animal takes on a negative mutation it is less likely to propagate and pass them on to future generations. Mutations that offer even the slightest advantage will prosper. That is what we call natural selection.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
I get this nonsense with people all the time.
I once asked how to explain evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction. The response i received was along the lines of "because it was advantageous". It's a very subtle misconception. Naturally, my response was "did the animals know it was advantageous?".
Point being, there is a difference between explaining the function of a thing and the mechanism which caused the function. Apply this to language. Advantage was not the cause, but the result.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Sex is nature's response to rapid climate change and microscopic predators. By combing my DNA with that of an appropriate mate the resulting offspring has a better chance for survival.
Truth exists objectively whether something is true or not does not depend on someone to observe it as such. Logic is a tool used to uncover truths. Morality stems from our empathetic urges. The reason why what we consider moral has changed over the years is in response to retreating tribal thoughts.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Of course, but from your perspective there is no such thing as absolute truth, there are only relative truths (plural). The idea of a real 'truth' is only found in theology. Even evolution is only a relative truth. Relative to the things that survived. De-evolution and death are also true and equally beneficial...
Come to think of it, the word evolution is also only a conceptual. Evolution is God.
"resulting offspring has a better chance for survival"
This is still result. Not cause.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Facts might be relative to each other but they are not relative to our perception of them. If that weren't the case science would not provide anything as there would be no such thing as empirical data. There are absolute truths but we aren't going to find them by sitting around comfortable with the idea that our imaginary friend has a trademark on the truth.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Forget about using ad hominem. We're not talking about 'imaginary friends'. We're talking about the evolution of cognition and all imaginary concepts.
Science IS data. Nothing else. That is why i was saying you defend a philosophy. Data can no more determine truth than the times tables. In fact we know even math to be limited. Pi is a good example of the difference between data and truth. In reality there is no such thing as an irrational number. Yet it is still a truth according to the data.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I'm making fun of your beliefs not devaluing your personality(ie: that was not an ad hominem). Science doesn't determine the truth. Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Unlike faith which denies observation so that beliefs might be preserved. Who says there is no such thing as an irrational number? Even what we call imaginary numbers exist and prove themselves useful(although admittedly we don't quite understand what they are).
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
I know science doesn't determine truth. We do. Through rationalization of information..
That was ad hominem and a straw man and anecdote.
Your argument for evolution are Non sequitur and anecdotal.
There are probably hundreds more used and It never fails.. Fallacious argument are characteristic of atheists from the very beginning. Richard Dawkins 'one god less' and the flying spaghetti monster are straw men. This video is about Argumentum ad populum, consensus gentium authority of science.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie We don't determine truths either. We discover truths .But what is true exists regardless of our opinions about it. You've been playing jump rope with the idea since before we started. You tell me that truth is subjective and Then ignore any effort I put into explaining that subjective "truths" are always trumped by objective truths. And science is not an authority. Even you are allowed to question it's discoveries. But if you want to prove them wrong, you'll need better arguments.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
No. Truth is rationalized. Logically deduced. The discoveries are only inanimate objects. It's the thinking person who interprets the data.
If you can't follow a thought then i'm wasting my time here. You at least understand where i'm going with this? I understand your position. It's been shown by videos like these and millions of others that you really don't know what i'm talking about. Do you get it or not? It's really quite simple. Your "science" is a logic. A philosophical rationale.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Whether someone is thinking about it or not has no bearing on what facts really are. I might believe that you are actually an AI created for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation. But in reality The theory that you are just another ill informed human being is much more probable.
I'm deducing that you believe that if you can make science look just as silly as religion that somehow means you win. Am I right?
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
"you can make science look just as silly as religion that somehow means you win.?"
You're joking right?.. Is there something wrong with you?... In ancient Greece, philosophy was science. I'm stating a historical fact. Science itself was not a physical science. The purpose of this demonstration isn't to 'belittle' you as your strange psychosis would lead you to believe, but that you are being brainwashed by a philosophy, and a self refuting one. You claim there is no logic, while using logic.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie And what type of logic to you use? Science is an open field of study. There are no authorities in science. Sure we can defer to the experts in fields we do not understand. But scrutiny of it's findings is not only allowed but encouraged. You just need substantial empirical evidence that point out where prevailing theories fail and provide a new hypothesis to explain it. We make progress with science because we carefully examine everything; and if a hypothesis fails, we move on.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
You're confused is because you're not familiar with logic. I'm defending your, and the average person's, ability to reason independently. Either information is determined rationally and logically or empirically. You are arguing that all knowledge is only empirical. But if you've been paying attention we've already determined that knowledge is also conceptual, in fact, all knowledge is conceptual. This is why the sciences are called "logy" the fields of science are literally called logics.. Duh?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie No, you have been arguing that truths are conceptual. Truths are empirical and whether we know about them or not doesn't matter. Information can be gathered on one's own through rationality and logic. But personal testimony can be hindered by too many things. This is why science examines itself and the world around us. The only way to know what real truths are is to rigorously test our knowledge. The idea that truths are conceptual is ludicrous.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
You're not sane.. It's depressing.
We test or knowledge through logical consistency. Data tells us nothing at all. It's not possible. All you are saying is science deals with empirical data. No kidding! Did you honestly think that philosophy doesn't deal with physical data? It does. The physical world is something that we all agree on. It's the interpretation of it that is an issue here. The self contradiction is obvious when you emphasize the physical over the logical. By who's logic?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie If data tells us nothing at all, we wouldn't be living in the world we are today. If science were as backwards as religion we'd be divided to the same extent religions are. Even sects of the same religion have formed because no one can agree on how their holy script should be interpreted. With science the data is black and white. Sure you have few dense people who argue that the earth is flat, but the evidence is clearly against them.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
I'm done trying to educated you. Why don't you expand your reading? Clearly you have no idea what's going on here.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Well, you obviously have some education; I won't argue that. But the world is filled with misinformation. And you are only helping to spread it. I can only hope that this species wises up in time before we end up really screwing ourselves over.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Look, instead of assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you to be misinformed or fantasizing about an invisible friend, just look for yourself.. You're trying desperately to remain ignorant of the subject. I'm not talking about 'intelligent design' or 'creationism'. You're attacking the people who are obviously not as educated on the subject.. You really think Kirk Cameron is the best source of information on the subject?.. None of us do either, it's common fucking sense.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I've watched some creationist speeches and many creationist debates. Their entire premise is based on ignorance, logical fallacies, and lies(from quote-mining to pseudoscience). They never provide an once of evidence in their favor. And they argue evolution by lumping in astronomy, geology and abiogenesis as if they were all the same thing. If you have a video you think would "educate" please point me in it's direction.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
I swear that this is exactly the case. You deliberately try to remain as ignorant as possible. Every atheist i've ever spoken to is depressingly ignorant of the real issue. Even though all the information is easily available to them.. But they all avoid it calling it 'misinformation'.
Someone wrote about this subject in the 40s in a book called The Abolition of man, by C.S. Lewis. The audio book is on youtube. You may not understand it, but that is how rational thought works.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie This creationist movement is doing more for atheism than anything else. Once people actually look at the information themselves and recognize the disingenuous tactics deployed by creationists, it's no wonder why people are turning away from religion. You don't have to be atheist to accept evolution.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
I just said i'm not talking about creationism or intelligent design. These are people who are on the defensive who don't really know what the issue is. The reason they don't know is because YOU have been running the show for the past 80 years. You control education, the universities, the dictionary publishers. We are already fucked over. If you weren't so brain dead you'd stop living in the fucking past and look at the world. Are you really so insane that you think creationists are the threat?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie 50% of the American population believe that BS. And because of reasons I just mentioned, yes I do see it as a threat. Many of us kept our heads down over the whole creation debate because it is so silly that of course people will come to realize it for what it is. That hasn't happened. And creationists are getting more aggressive sneaking crap into textbooks and trying to make it look like they have a valid argument.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
It doesn't matter what people believe you retard.. Is there something wrong with you? Seriously..
No matter if 90% of the people believed creation, you still control the education. They could believe that a tooth fairy leaves money under their pillows. It doesn't matter as long as they are all DOING the same thing. Every one of us have already subjetivized our language and lost the ability to reason properly. And this is all YOUR doing. You know nothing about the real world. It's pathetic.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I've found our conversation both amusing and depressing. I'm headed to work. Seriously Take another good look at our conversation before you go. Take care.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Good luck fighting American freedom. The communist revolution will finally end the stupid American idea of Independence.. And they weren't successful anyway right? America is messed up today because of religion and it was successful in the beginning because of communism.. Isn't that right?
People are so dumb these days.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Why do so many people think atheism is communism?
Travaillons 2 months ago
No one said atheism 'is' communism. That would just be stupid.. One is a philosophy and the other an economic system..
Atheism and Communism are from the same boat. You are denying this?.. Most people i've spoken to willingly accept and embrace it.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Who have you spoke to about this? I am an atheist and I support Dr. Ron Paul in the upcoming presidential election. Your communism and atheism link are like poor attack ads that have no validity and doesn't explain your god's view that man should give away all his material riches. the latter sounds like communism to me.
tommy41995 2 months ago
I assure you the link is very real. Historically as well as logically.
I understand that there are all sorts of compromises between these views.. I have also met people who are theists and defend socialism from the bible. Though they are completely wrong. The whole idea of personal possession, inheritance and even the hierarchical structure are well established theologically speaking. There are even ranks of angels in hierarchies. Atheists tend to think that these were all control mechanisms.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It is a statement about a single issue. The issue is: "Do you believe that there is a god or gods?" And the statement is: "No, I don't believe there is a god or gods."
That's it. That's all Atheism is. And therefore it is not a philosophy nor an ideology.
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
I know how this works, athe'ists' say they have no philosophy.. I believe them. A philosophy entails thought..
Athe!'>"ism'"<! is exactly an ideology. Then the aspect of studying the world from the perspective of atheism is a philosophy.
Language doesn't change meaning when people disagree with it unfortunately.. The powers that be have always had an atheistic faction even since ancient Greece. It was one of the philosophies then and still is now, even if we're brainwashed to think otherwise.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
How could one statement about one issue possibly be an ideology? It does in no way tell you what to do and how to behave, what's good and what's bad, it doesn't even tell you what you should and shouldn't believe and how to go about studying the world!
An Atheist can be a liberal or a conservative, pro life or pro choice, someone who tries to gain knowledge through science or someone who tries to gain knowledge through trance, meditation, summoning spirits, tarrot cards, etc...
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
Semantics.. You're trying to argue as if history had no part it's development. There were events in history which lead up to the point where you are saying "we are only atheists". That is not how it began. What you seen now is blatant brainwashing. You're trained to parrot the words as if you are a new species who have no roots in history, as if reality began with the television, or when you were born (as is commonly stated). But there is a real world where atheism is idealized and propagated.
knowwaie 2 months ago
"An Atheist can be a liberal or a conservative, gain knowledge through science or someone who tries to gain knowledge through trance, meditation, summoning spirits, tarrot cards, etc.."
In fact, you're neglecting to apply your own logic here. The real history shows that you are correct. In the past there were atheists who were mystics, conjurers and alchemists. The hippies were commonly atheists and they knew all about meditation.
Learning history and language will break this hypnosis.
knowwaie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie
"In fact, you're neglecting to apply your own logic here..."
What are you talking about? And why would you agree with my point one sentence after you've told me that I'm neglecting to apply my own logic? Care to elaborate?
Rawlsrocks 2 months ago
We both know that what i'm saying here is true. Your philosophy is already the dominant power. But you're all so brainwashed that you're still imagining the threat of religion, when it Doesn't Even Exist anymore. All that is left are a few stragglers trying to defend themselves with an already distorted language and ideology. Do you honestly think that religion is a threat to you? You are absolute bat shit insane.. Which is the intention. To abolish independent thought. Logic is obsolete.
knowwaie 2 months ago
It's crazy how you really have no arguments. Every time resort to first, anecdotal misuse and ignorance or theology, set it up as a straw man, then attack it with ad hominem. Then complain about how the future is doomed because strawmen are a threat to your fragile, yet, evolving world.. Do you really not see yourself doing these things?
In reality, the screwing over already happened. Humans lost reasoning capability 60 years ago to relative thought. There is no objective rationality anymore.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I'm not straw-manning anything. I've seen the "fruits" of faith. Believing in things without proper evidence sets people up to be conned out of their money and often put their own lives in danger. It happens all the time(spiritual healers, the catholic church teaching people in Africa not to use condoms, 9-11...).
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
In the real world, that place outside of your head.. Western civilization has given way to the eastern philosophy. Darwinism, Freudian, Marxism. These three guys were friends, and your friends. You're the assholes we've been trying to defend ourselves against. Richard Dawkin's great great uncle was one of the British enemies of the United States. It's not coincidence at all that all your spokes people are from foreign counties. The reason none of this is apparent to you is called brainwashing.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie PZ Myers trumps all of our "spokes people". Besides, all these people are just men. Anything they say I check against secular sources. Because like all men they make mistakes and occasionally make the same mistakes creationists do.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Holy shit kid..
Is it true that the American public education has been in the hands of your leaders for at least the past 80 years? PZ Myers is a teacher isn't he?..
If there is one thing you need to get through your head it's the actually state of the present world. You're even in denial about this. Do you know what Marxism is and where it comes from? I bet you even have absolutely not clue what your own philosophy stands for. It's so gross that i literally makes my physically sick.
knowwaie 2 months ago
In the real world, you are the people who we've been fighting. Soviet Russia, Communist china. Eastern philsophy. That is where YOU Come From. Do you know about all this?.. Maybe you do, maybe you're a willful follower of the Communist revolution. Most of you are just brainwashed drones who don't know your ass from your elbows.
knowwaie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie " Most of you are just brainwashed drones"
Sounds like organized religion.
Travaillons 2 months ago
@knowwaie Mhm, because people kill each other all day, every day, so that they can survive. I don't know if you are one to think this, but I was certainly surprised by how many people think that atheists believe that.
Travaillons 2 months ago
See, this is how retarded you have to be to be an atheist today. You don't know what you're talking about. You're arguing that you're using logic and that there is no logic at the exact same time. It's actually complete insanity. You deny your own ability to reason, submit to the methodology of another's rational, then deny that any rationale was involved. It's disgusting.. If the ancient philosophers were alive today they would laugh at you. You are using logic against logic. Complete madness.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Once again I don't deny that we do rationalize the world around. We do use logic to determine our understanding of it. However truths exist independent of our understanding of them. You are the one who's been stating that truths are conceptual and ignoring that the implications of such a statement means to deny reality all together.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
The worst part is, i need only point you to a saying from Dawkins. In response to a person explaining that the evolution theory and all that is attached to are not empirical, Dawkins said 'we have other means of finding truth indirectly'. This is called rationalization. So it is fucking admitted to you morons that the theory is implicitly reasoned and mostly hypothetical (i.e. IF [hypothetically] there is no god, then a certain logical format follows). You are following the format blindly.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie You don't have to see truths to measure their effect. For example if prayer granted wishes we would have substantial proof of the existence of a god(or perhaps some other supernatural phenomenon). If it were only the prayers of a particular sect which were answered we might call that the "true" religion. God wouldn't have to show up himself in order for us to know of his existence. It's a simple concept.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
"By combing my DNA with that of an appropriate mate the resulting offspring has a better chance for survival."
"What happens to be advantageous does arrive at random"
That's right, the 'better chance for survival' wasn't the reason why they evolved. It's was entirely random then nature selected the random mutation. This is exactly what i'm talking about. The evolution defenders are using a very subtle psychological trick. You argue the benefits of survival rather then the actual evolution.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I've already covered this. Mutations are random but the reason why certain traits exist is because they were more advantageous than traits that weren't. You can pick 5 wild horses and race them against each other. One of them will win. There is no training involved. No waving of a magic wand. One random horse will be faster than the other horse and that is advantageous for survival.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Thirdly, to give my argument again in it's correct context. Over the past 5,000 years there has been no lack of cognition. Our ability to think comes from conceptualization of language created by primitive people who "project themselves into the sky", or in proper English, thought there were real absolutes like "truth" and "logic" and "morality". The thing in the sky was reality that is not here.
In other words, God, whether real or imagined, was still the source of all human cognition.
knowwaie 2 months ago
Fourth and finally just to get this on record..
If there is no god then our imagination of god created us. Maybe not physically but mentally. It was a huge mistake for atheists to argue against morality. Since almost everything falls under this category. Truth and logic being also relative in this sense have no objective existence. They exist only in our minds. But to a theist, they are absolute, not in the sense of always being the same, but of being real regardless of our miss / application.
knowwaie 2 months ago
Long story short. Language did not evolve, which is why the atheist will most likely dismiss all of history as primitive superstition rather than confront it. Even though it was that history which 'evolved' us to where we are now.. It's strange isn't it? As if you all believe evolution ceased through 4,000 years of human history.
Language and communication require conceptualization. This is why the vast majority of our words describe nonphysical entities. 'Human evolution' is a paradox.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Language did evolve. It's important for any social animal to have the means to communicate. Historians are scientists too. It is their job to uncover what actually happened and what is just BS. As for any information that is not found outside of its canon text, we can safely conclude that it did not happen. Evolution is and ongoing process. Speciation however takes hundreds of thousands of years. I'm no stranger to concepts, but wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
Let me digress for a moment and remind you, speciation does not even take that long.. I've been saying for years that you're all exaggerating this in order to fit billions of years. It's possible to have a new species in less than 4 generations. About 60 years.
Historians used to say that Egypt was the oldest civilization because of their language was 'primitive'. Now we know they were about the 5th. Evolution of language could not be show in history. Unless you make shit up, which you do.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie If speciation only took 4 generations we wouldn't be able to breed with other people around the world. we would be able to crossbreed dogs(as different as the might appear a Chihuahua and a Leonberger are both the same species).
When I speak of language evolving I'm speaking of the need for language among other social animals as well as our own.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
So.. We have three things at work here. The brain that is able to understand language (which isn't as simple as you like to think). The tongue and voice box able to communicate language. Then the language itself. Which of these came first?
I'll just put it this way, for the sake of argument.. Religion, whether true or false, was the source of language. As much as you lunatics attack it (as if evolution ceased through human history) God is the concept that made conceptual language possible.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Religion was mankind's first attempt at philosophy and science. The easiest way to explain the unknown is to project oneself into the sky(which doesn't explain anything at all).
Which came first? Obviously the brain is where communication begins. However, the vocal chords and tongue are tools for survival and might have come about independent of the need for language. Adapting these tools for language has been a great asset, but most communication occurs through body language.
ShrodingerFu 2 months ago
@ThePythagoran because science has evidence an atheism? leading to jihad what the fuck..i could point to 200million pagen native americans killed by christians over 400 years as a direct result of christianity or you could point to commy russia where it killed 100million because of communism but just happened to be atheist because chruchs mosuqes and temples could be used as meeting places for rebels atheism is not a doctirne or a beleif its the lack of one
finka123456 2 months ago
@ThePythagoran "empiricism isn't empirically provable"
You're using empiricism to disprove empiricism. That's a logical fallacy. Your argument goes null and void.
Yohannu 2 months ago
@ThePythagoran Religious thought is just plain stupid, if you cant proove your claims stop making them.
Konicava 2 months ago
Very true - so if something refuses to test its predictions, insists that it is right and that everybody should stfu, it's not science.
So anthropogenic global warming theory is no more science than is creationism.
FuzzyFace73 3 months ago
@WilliamTelevision Antony Flew was converted due to Intelligent Design arguments, not biblical study. And afterwards he admitted to have not stayed up to date on the studies in Abiogenesis and how the arguments made by Behe had already been refuted. He is a modest deist, a slight defect from his former Atheism but not Christian.
pat5168 3 months ago
Penn and Teller stick to comedy thats you forte.
glendaweil 3 months ago
@glendaweil
They're magicians, not comedians.
And they obviously did well with this show, like what.. 8 seasons?
DemoticVEVO 3 months ago
Regardless of what our political agendas, all you have to say is, "Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance." That's all. - Neil deGrasse Tyson
CRaschNet 4 months ago 16
@hellavadeal
Darwin never worked on abiogenesis. The hypothesis of abiogenisis came about way after the death of Charles Darwin. Please stop posting bullshit.
CRaschNet 4 months ago
@hellavadeal
OK, the intellectually dishonest just hit it the fan. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT. ABIOGENISIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION IS NOT BASED ON ABIOGENESIS!
CITE THE BOOK. IF YOU POST AGAIN WITHOUT CITING YOU WILL BE BLOCK. LAST WARNING!!
CRaschNet 4 months ago
@CRaschNet
Screw it. Your intellectual dishonesty, logical fallacies and plain lining for Jesus has been posted over 3 times. You are blocked from posting!
CRaschNet 4 months ago
the more you know the less you belive
ThePimV 4 months ago
Well... I suppose that argument could be made. Creationism isn't science. At least not in the conventional sense.
ZachariasClub 4 months ago
@ZachariasClub
Creation isn't science period. Most people who push try to find evidence for Creation. That is not how the scientific method works. Science work on the principle of here is the evidence we have observed, what can we hypothesize based on the evidence we have, lets test it and continue to test it. Creation is faith based belief. There is no testing. Its here is our assumption and lets change or lie about the evidence to support it.
To this day evolution is continually being tested
CRaschNet 3 months ago 15
@CRaschNet I completely agree, Creation "Science" (Pseudoscience.) is all about them looking for evidence anywhere to support them, when real science is not based on its merit by its ability to fabricate proof supporting it, but its ability to withstand peer reviewed scrutiny. Which evolution does and has for a hundred years.
pat5168 3 months ago
This is ridiculous..
The suffix ology after refers to a science. The'ology' is also a science, but not 'accredited' since it is not a physical science, and admittedly is not... Psychology is a science, but not a physical science, in the same way.
What is paraded as 'evolutionary biology' is the philosophy of order from chaos. Why do you think big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology are so contingent?.. Yet you lunatics will continually complain that these are separate fields. Stupid?
knowwaie 3 months ago