idiots this has got nothing to do with proving if God exists or not...the fact that God exists at least makes the religious person happy, thinking that when he dies he will go to heaven....you think when you die your fat ass will get eaten by worms and shit...well obv that wouldn't make a normal person happy so why believe in that bullshit. Your believes dont make you happy, dont satisfy you, dont do shit. It's all about personal satisfying and how you feel about yourself you fucking daft cunt
@Agent5553 This was a joke, fool. And by the way, we naturalists don't "believe" that we decompose when we die. Belief is a faith-based assertion, much like the God Hypothesis or the Heaven/Hell fairy-tale. As far as we can tell, decomposition is the only thing that happens when you die. Care to know why you don't see dead bodies lying there in their coffins 100 years after death? Are you so stupid as to assert that human bodies don't rot? Your line of reasoning is, to be quite honest, PATHETIC.
I don't feel like reading the comments below. but I'll attest to what I see here and give a factual statement.
Macro-evolution is just a bunch of micro-evolution, just as 24-pack of soda is just a bunch of... sodas. If you believe in soda, you can get it in many different packs. If you believe in micro-evolution- you're admitting macro-evolution does exist. They go hand in hand. If you believe in God, fine. You have every right to. But half merged theistic evolution is a confused thing.
Before we can say there is no god, we have to ask what is god, who is god. There is no man in the sky. But is there something deeper within us and ourselves.
BTW, EVIL by definition does not exist, only Gd does. EVIL is to live backwards. Anything that is, is also good. Nothing is evil, literally, for evil is the lack of something, which cannot also exist, again, by definition. FREEWILL is Gd. . You are talking about animals. WE-R humans... Elevate friend: goo.gl / GN4D
I can keep pointing out stuff like this but you'll never even consider that its real because the people in charge tell us to go to church. People who didnt belive in church or god were ex-communicated, or killed during the inquisition(why would they do that?), thus only gullible people who reject fact where able to pass on their genes. Rinse and repeat with enough churches and only people who belive in god will be left
Humans eat rabbits. Some rabbits where too cute for the person to bring itself to kill it(e.g. prized pigs). Over enough time with enough humans around only cute rabbits are able to pass on its genes, hence all rabbits are cute(except for chinese people they dont count because they arent humans xD)
Monkeys eat fruit. If the fruit tastes bad the monkey spits it out and it is left to its own devices. if it tastes good the monkey digests it, unable to digest the seeds they come out with monkey feces which act as fertilizer, giving it a greater chance to pass on its genes. Rinse and Repeat only fruit that tastes good can pass on its genes in the presence of enough monkeys
@lazyrobot47 what has science proven? Something cannot come from that which does not exist, so what created existence and why? And so and and so, the answer would be impossible to reach with science cause you would spend an eternity in doing so
I believe and trust in God, the word Jesus Christ, if your an atheist I have a question for you.. Lets turn things around abit.. What evidence do you have for atheism?
You say any question cannot be reached with science because it'd take an eternity to do so. Did you not hear what you just said? You still assume that it can be reached with science. That means even you have a hole in your faith. I'd rather wait an eternity, even if I die before that day, to wait for the right answer than to accept the quick and easy answer because I'm not a coward.
@OP Which part of the irreducible complexity argument are you not necessarily for? The Flagellum argument is bullshit because every part of the flagellum is seen and known in other functional roles (with just ten parts, it is a protein pump of sorts). With the eye, there is evidence that each step from simple photoreceptors, to eyespots, to compound eyes and simple eyes (prob wrong terminology there... insect and mammalian eyes for example) exists and has an evolutionary advantage.
Hahaha. Man long sex is the best! So much more pleasurable when its long, guys have a much bigger organs then in a quicky. I wouldn't want a woman to cum straight away, there would be no intimacy in that. Plus God designed it so that woman can have multiple by the time I have one. That's real love when you can give that much pleasure to another and only take a little for yourself. I wouldn't want it any other way.
@blindedbyturds Haha. Well each to their own. Some are lovers others are fighters. All with their own purpose as defined by themselves, God or no God.
@blindedbyturds Actually, according to the Bible we were perfect before the fall so that argument doesn't logically make sense from a disproving God point. As I've said before, there is no way to prove either side of the argument from a hard facts stand point.
I like the fact all those smart people on here engage in debates over this an that... you may have missed this but... arguing over the internet is like winning the paralympics. You may have won but youre still retarded xD same old smae old...
@USEYAHOO go out and do something better with your time please? would ya? stop wasting electricity and precious lifetime on youtube... you all too smart for that xD
"bad people going to hell" kiddo. "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury."
It is also clear if you dont accept god and Jesus you will also go to hell.
@Waredwr "there will be wrath and fury" does not 1), say anything about wrath and fury being eternal, and 2), says nothing about fire or hell.
Hell is a false teaching and is not Biblical.
Also, choosing not to see the future and being infallible is NOT a contradiction. I deny evolution because the "Evidence" is VERY debatable, and there in fact is evidence against it, these Biblical "Fails" you mentioned can easily be harmonized.....
@recalibration Yes, the Nylon eating Bacteria is a great example of Micro-Evolution, which has been observed many times. Macro-Evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed and there is plenty of evidence against it. Note that I said EVIDENCE, not my personal approval or opinion.
Speciation has been observed. Just take 5 seconds to google "examples of observed speciation" First two links should have all the information you need regarding that matter.
Micro and macro evolution are the exact same process. If there was evidence that demonstrated that "macro evolution" as incorrect in any way, then I suggest you turn in your scientific paper for peer review, because that would be nobel-prize winning material.
@WitchHunter93 Micro and Macro Evolution is different. Mutation is one of the main foundations of Macro-Evolution. Over 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular has shown that not one new species has ever emerged. If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
"Mutation is one of the main foundations of Macro-Evolution."
Mutation has the exact same role for evolution both macro and micro, since it's the same process. Where are you sourcing this information from?
You didn't look at the sites, did you? There are plenty of examples of speciation that have been observed.
An "original" species does not "transform" into a new one, that's not evolution. You don't seem to understand how speciation works, let alone what evolution is.
You know dogs? Their ancestors weren't originally like that. It was because of us humans that dogs today are different from their wolf cousins. They originated from the wolves' ancestors and we humans were there to observe it every step of the way which is why we have poodles now.
When you say "transform" you imply that a wolf will turn into a dog. No, the wolf and the dog shared ancestry and branched off. Speciation.
The evidence for evolution is hardly debatable, since we currently have 0 scientific papers showing that any part of the evolutionary theory is incorrect.
If you are looking for an example of, say, an animal that is transitioning fish to amphibian, then a good example would be the mudskipper fish. Its leg-like fins are still evolving as well as its new ability to take in oxygen from the air with its throat, suggesting progressive evolution rather than sudden design.
@WitchHunter93 "An "original" species does not "transform" into a new one, that's not evolution"
Um... yes it is. A species, through 'Mutation' and 'Natural selection', becomes an entirley new species. What scientists call "Speciation" is just minor changes within the SAME kind of plant or animal, not an Entirely new species. You're the one who clearly doesnt know what evolution means. Talk to me again when you learn a little more about evolution.
No, speciation is not a "minor change" within the same "kind". You don't seem to know your scientific terms.
Please show me where you're sourcing this information from.
This is not pokemon. A species through mutation and natural selection will adapt to its environment. Speciation occurs when one or more groups of the same animal becomes separated from the entire population and evolves separately to the point where the two groups are too different to reproduce.
@WitchHunter93 Ok, I dont know where you are getting your information about Dogs. Dogs lived more than 2000 years ago, so how can "humans [be] there to observe it every step of the way"? and again, you're wrong. Talk to me when you learn something about the actual theory of evolution.
You may not know this, but humans lived more than 2000 years ago too... We know speciation occurred because we were there and it's because of us that we have poodles today instead of more wolves.
"Talk to me when you learn something about the actual theory of evolution."
Clearly you are sourcing this info from pseudo-scientific creationist sites. I can't think of any other sources that would misrepresent the theory of evolution so grossly.
@WitchHunter93 Nope, I get my sources from actual scientific research. Not all scientists agree with evolution, you know. And if there is anyone grossly misrepresenting the theory of evolution, its you.
"[Dogs] originated from the wolves' ancestors"
"you imply that a wolf will turn into a dog. No, the wolf and the dog shared ancestry and branched off"
Contradicting yourself there, slick?
Seriously tho, you dont really know much about evolution. Please learn, then we'll talk.
"Nope, I get my sources from actual scientific research."
You do realize that you need reliable sources to do research right..? You can't even provide me with one (1) source. From what you're telling me, you're just getting this stuff from your head based off of unknown sources.
"Contradicting yourself there, slick?"
Wolves and dogs sharing ancestry is not a wolf turning into a dog.
@WitchHunter93 So If I dont provide you with sources, its automaticaly 'Not reliable'. But if you dont provide me with sources (which you havnt), then I just have to take your word for it... Interesting. And yes, I have looked into many sites regarding evolution. From Wikipedia to Talk-Origens. So, unlike you, I am well versed in the theory of Evolution. And its not lack of evidence for evolution, its evidence against it.
"And its not lack of evidence for evolution, its evidence against it."
I suggest you turn in your scientific paper for peer review regarding evidence against evolution, you could earn a nobel prize for that if it's correct.
@WitchHunter93 Here are a few of my sources to shut you up:
Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.
Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Expectations in Mutation Breeding,” 2005, p. 48, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig. ....
Where in here does it show that speciation is "minor changes" within the same "kind"?
Where does it demonstrate that (say) a wolf would transform into a dog rather than wolves and dogs sharing ancestry according to the evolutionary theory?
You still haven't looked at the link I asked you to look at, have you?
Should also check out the video recalibration suggested, pretty good info right there.
@WitchHunter93 "You still haven't looked at the link I asked you to look at, have you?"
Um... you didnt provide a link. You just told me to google "observed speciation". I told you already that I studied this from Wikipedia to TalkOrigins, which has a long list of "Observed Speciation".
"I suggest you turn in your scientific paper for peer review regarding evidence against evolution, you could earn a nobel prize for that if it's correct."
@WitchHunter93 .....against it. I even provided some sources. What are you, retarded? Sorry to insult, but you seem to be so stuck on the idea of evolution that you choose to ignore the arguments i present, you present dumb arguments which have almost nothing to do with the theory of evolution and apperantly like to twist my words around. Its frustrating how retarded your replies are. You wanna give a good reply? Look at Recalibration. He at least provided a credible source.
DNA is inconsistent with what we would expect intelligently designed DNA to look like. We humans shouldn't have dormant genes for forming tails, chickens should not have genes for teeth. It's not only unnecessary, but at times HARMFUL (like painful wisdom teeth that I mentioned). If not by evolution, then there should be no reason for our design to include useless/inefficient/harmful traits.
Dangerous bacteria is not an intelligent design at all.
@WitchHunter93 Science has not come to fully understand DNA in explaining why these "dormant" genes. Science could, in the near future, and with more advanced technology, discover that they misinterpreted their findings in the past or were simply not able to see something clearly with the limited technology at hand.
I love science but I take it all with a grain of salt- because history has taught us that one day science can make a claim and the next day change it/throw it out/or re-define it.
Science has taught us that it is self-correcting, not that it just comes up with new ideas today to replace the ideas from yesterday. History has taught us that the scientific method is consistently the most reliable method for assessing all the evidence presented and coming to the best conclusion possible.
Next time you get your flu shot, be aware that that is the same science you are taking with a grain of salt.
@WitchHunter93 So you agree with me. Then would you also agree that no scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say, on scientific theories, "this is a FACT" since scientific theories are always considered to be works in progress.
Also, as far as flu is concerned, I prefer natural alternatives to the concoctions put together in a lab.
Uhm, you don't seem to know what a scientific theory is..
We have the theory of gravity and we have the facts of gravity. It is a fact that smaller objects can be attracted by the gravitational field from a larger object, the theory explains why this happens through empirical evidence. So, yes, scientists can say X is a scientific fact, because a scientific fact is established by the preponderance of evidence.
@WitchHunter93 Uhm, you don't seem to be capable of consistency- by your own admission you stated that science is "self-correcting". Because of science and its ever-evolving nature, I believe (since you've side-stepped us to gravity) that as much as we know about gravity, we cannot say with 100% certainty that we know all there is to possibly know. That is my point.
Smallpox is contained in a couple labs here. Were you sarcastically alluding to the fact that it doesn't exist anymore?
I agree, we can't say 100% that we know everything. If we did know everything then science would stop. However, you're implying that because we can't be 100% sure that therefore you get to take it with a grain of salt.
When something is a scientific fact it does not mean it's 100% certain, it is what is best backed up with empirical evidence.
I know about smallpox, my point was that you are taking the same science with a grain of salt that invented the vaccine for smallpox.
Empirical evidence can be demonstrated to be false later on, and as such, scientific facts can be demonstrated to be false.
Does that mean that the scientific method is unreliable? No, it means the scientific method cares about what is demonstrably true, which is what separates science from religion.
@WitchHunter93 You have to remember that the scientific method is performed by human beings. Human beings, being imperfect, have the tendency to overlook things or get sloppy, which can bring about sloppy or inaccurate results. Whatever tools we may wield, there is always the probability of error.
And what cannot be demonstrable today, may perhaps be demonstrable tomorrow. Only at the end of our existence will we be able to look back and see what we've accomplished definitively.
Everyone knows that, it's common sense. The fact that we correct our mistakes is the reason we've cured smallpox and have been able to fly to the moon.
You seem to be under the impression that if it's not 100% certain then it should be taken with a grain of salt, which is counterproductive to making new discoveries, so good luck with that.
If science was taken with a grain of salt rather than being seriously assessed through empirical evidence, then we wouldn't have the theory of gravity and germ theory. We would not have scientists taking the scientific method seriously enough to invent vaccines, fly to the moon, or design the computer that you used to write that comment. We wouldn't know that it takes pluto to orbit the sun every 248 years... I can keep going on and on.
@WitchHunter93 you've clearly misunderstood me while at the same time kind of agreeing with me in not so many different words. Happens all the time here on the 'ol youtube...
@82dr89bg Ah, but until then, you can't say "I don't know what this is, so GOD". Because you know what? That's called arrogance and stupidity. You are one of those people who worships a God of the Gaps, which means you poke around in what science doesn't know (which is actually encouraged by scientists themselves, by the way) and freak out and say "HAHA, BOYS! WE'LL NEVER FIGURE THIS OUT!". Unfortunately for you, God is running out of gaps to hide in, surely but slowly. Enjoy the future, bud.
@EinsteinxtremeRoblox My friend, I wish you the best in YOUR future of a false reality built up by the non-supportive pillars of existential nihilism. I would see you as arrogant and perhaps less-intelligent in sharing your view on something you clearly know NOTHING about.
@82dr89bg Could you elaborate on that, please? I don't think our existence is pointless, as I believe that we are the ones who give it meaning, and I don't depend on ancient books of flawed mythology defended by brainwashed people to give me meaning in life. Meaning in life comes from love of family, joy from friendship and simple things, and many other sources. It does not come from a supernatural relationship with a being who creates lakes of fire where innocents burn forever.
@82dr89bg Can you demonstrate any of the supernatural claims of religion to be true? I've been to church on several occasions myself. It's an atmosphere of general happiness and social joys. You get to see friends and there is singing and laughter and stuff, but it's all unfortunately based off of violent, hateful, divisive mythology. There isn't a single benefit of religion that you cannot attain through purely secular means.
@WitchHunter93 ...or how about the sinuses of our bipedal race that are oriented to drain in a quadripedal stance... like our quadripedal ancestors. ...or the fact that the genetic code of mitochondria and choloroplasts is different than all eukarytic cells... or the pelvic outlet of female humans being dangerously too small to permit an infant head to pass in order to maintain a bipedal stance... or well I've run out of room
Yeah, cheers mate; I do try. Accepting someone's belief purely w/ out falsifiability is naive & makes you susceptible to manipulation. Otherwise it's all opinion (or speculation) & well, we all know what they're like right? XD
I don't think you even cared to look at the two links I told you to try. You've already decided on your own that there's no evidence for evolution by appealing to anonymous sources. It's not that you don't believe it due to lack of scientific evidence, it's that you don't understand what evolution is and you purposely reject the evidence presented.
You are aware the difference between micro & macro evol. is just the amount of time elapsed so the micro incrementally builds?
You're wholly wrong. As Waredwr stated a wk ago, _our very biology_ proves macro. Full stop. See the presentation by Dr. Ken Miller (Biology), Prof @ Brown, present one of the results of the Human Genome project. [ watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk ] 4m23s running time. This knowledge dates prior to ~2006.
@recalibration Actually, Micro-evolution is slight changes within a plant or animal kind. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.
Macro-evolution, however, are big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men.
The video you linked, he speaks of our DNA, and how similar it is to apes, particularly chromosome #2, where he says that it 'Fused' from....
Macro-evolution is not big changes. It is many small changes over an extended period of time. The process is exactly the same. talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/
I suppose I must send you the thing manually.
Also, you want a fish to amphibian? Look at the mudskipper fish. The fact that its fins are still developing into legs and its ability to take oxygen from the air isn't entirely effective points to the fish still in transition, rather than design.
@WitchHunter93 Great example. There is also fossil evidence from the species Tiktaalik which lived 375 million years ago, which was a member of the family that made the transition from fish into amphibians. Another great example, which is still with us, is the Queensland Lungfish. However, in spite of this, creationists will still stick their fingers in their ears and scream "there's no evidence for evolution, how come blah blah blah....".
Woops, failed link. Whatever, just google "evidence for macro evolution" should bring you to that webpage. It explains what macro-evolution is and is not, simple enough.
It is not a big change, it is many small changes (or micros).
If we are designed then we have a prankster designer who has made the mudskippers seemingly developing fin-legs, our seemingly vestigial wisdom teeth that HURT us, and every type of deadly bacteria that contains DNA.
"Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?"
Now you've just gone full retard, or as I like to call it, crossing the line betwn follower & fanatic. Forming questions of argumentum ad ignorantiam does *not* refute the fact *reality overrides faith*.
How many revisions did that god need before he created a model that was actually within spec of his own image (Gen 1:27)? See? I can do that too.
"So we can scan our genome, & you know what, if we don't find that chromosome, evolution is in trouble. Well guess what? It's chrom. #2. Our chrom. #2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chrom.. [...] Chrom. 2 is unique to our lineage, it emerges as the result of the head to head fusion of two chrom. that remain seperate in other primates [...] The precise fusion site has been located @ base # 114 455 823 to 114 455 838."
@Waredwr .....with proper knowledge of Context, The times in which it was written, and an understanding of the language it was written in, and YOU sir, started with the Ad Hominems by calling me a Ignorrant Twat.
@jonnyneo53 You started with personal attacks by claiming I was ignorant of both historical and biblical knowledge at the beginning of our argument. You did not disprove my points, you attacked me. Hell IS mentioned in the bible, I will list several other passages :
@jonnyneo53 These are a few of dozen that list hell as a post-death place of torment for all eternity for sins (including rejection of god or Jesus) after judgement. Biblical fails cannot be harmonized, especially the passages i listed in my early arguement.
@Waredwr ............. Alright. Just to shut you up ill present an arguement against hell. But in the Personal Inbox, not here. I hate the character limits.
@jonnyneo53 I'll be waiting, just read the passages i linked below, and it nullifies any notion that hell is not a biblical teaching, it outlines everything I've mentioned hell is believed to be. Anything other than that is nitpicking at its finest.
@jonnyneo53 I have also sent my response(s). One with my text answer with a video attachment, and the second with another video attachment. Enjoy, answer when you are able.
@jonnyneo53 Human evolution cannot be disputes, the main fault with evolution has been amended. primates have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Only possibility of the loss of a pair of chromosomes would be through fusions at the telomere and centrimere. This fusion has been found at chromosome pair 2. This links us and primates with a common ancestor. IRREFUTABLE. Radio-Carbon dating may only accurately test up to 6000 years ago, but it is not the method used by science in dating anymore.
@jonnyneo53 Other methods (which can be found through simple Google searches for those who are ignorant in the matter at hand) are accurate to millions, if not billions of years. This means no adam and eve creationist story of an earth that is 6000-10000 years old is possible.
Interesting how atheists have no proof that God doesnt exist...they accuse theists of having blind faith but atheists themselves seem to be walking inna tonne of blind faith
@7semakula Atheists have a tonne of blind faith because they have no proof that God doesn't exist, eh? Well then, so you can have an unbiased perspective, let's get off the topic of god! Let's talk about godzilla then. I could ask you if you believe godzilla is real and wait for a response, but for expedience, I'll assume the answer is NO. So. What proof do YOU have that Godzilla doesn't exist? JUSTIFY your FAITH in Godzilla's nonexistence, or admit it to be, as you say, BLIND faith.
Easy. There is no giant monster that lives in the ocean off the coast of Japan. There is historical proof as to when Godzilla was released in theatres. There are eyewitnesses that where in the room when the idea of Godzilla was created and pitched to be made a movie. Plenty of evidence to prove Godzilla is not real. So, you have any evidence that God doesnt exist?
@jonnyneo53 Oh, ok. I can do that. I'll use the same argument against god that you used against godzilla then. I am sure your own argument must be airtight, but I will leave it up to you to re-evaluate it yourself if you want. Here goes: South Park is just a cartoon. There are plenty of people involved with its production who can confirm that it is not real. God is a character in South Park. He is played by a human voice actor, an actual man who can be interviewed. God is disproved.
@medexamtoolsdotcom Godzilla was created by Tomoyuki Tanaka in 1954. That is historical evidence to prove that Godzilla is not a real monster, just an invention of a Japanese man in the 1950's. South Park didnt "invent" God. They based there 'God' character on actual God, which you have yet to disprove. Nice try though.
@jonnyneo53 Sigh. You're not going to beat me here, though I'll admit you're putting up a better fight than I expected.
Prove that Tomoyuki Tanaka invented godzilla. Prove that godzilla didn't already exist before that. Prove that godzilla doesn't exist completely independently of the godzilla movies, or of planet Earth for that matter. Prove that Tomoyuki Tanaka wasn't a luminary, a prophet, who received knowledge of Godzilla's existence telepathically from Godzilla himself.
@medexamtoolsdotcom Well, hundreds of websites confirm that Tomoyuki Tanaka did indeed invent Godzilla. Godzilla is not based on any real giant monster, in fact it was described as being "a cross between a gorilla and a whale", thus discarding the idea that it exists independantly from the Movies or earth. and Tomoyuki Tanaka never claimed to be a prophet, thus discarding telepathic divinity. Real-life Godzilla Disproved.
@jonnyneo53 So you're basically saying Godzilla had a creator? Tomoyuki Tanaka, right? So lets boil this down into its simplist form here...
Premise 1: Tomoyuki created Godzilla
Premise 2: In the one guy's Godzilla analogy, and your refutation to that, you're basically comparing Godzilla to god
Conclusion: As you have put it, God needed a creator, because in your counterargument to medex, Someone created Godzilla, so Something must have created God.
@chrism4n14 I never compared God to Godzilla. His challenge was simply to prove a universal negative, such as: "Godzilla Doesn't Exist". My reffutation of Godzilla was to point out that it was the fictional Creation/Invention of Tomoyuki Tanaka. Thats just ONE way to prove Godzilla isnt real. Another way would be to point out something that is self-contradictory. That does not, however, imply that God must have a creator.
@jonnyneo53 The video you linked me to was of William Craig, a video that had comments disabled along with the like bar, strange... But, as long as we're here, let me just warn you, if you are going to keep up the "Prove God doesn't exist" argument, you're going to get real familiar with the term Burden of Proof. And as a spectator to many arguments about BoP, you (theists in general) tend to look bad, thats a spectators observation, not an atheistic debater's.
@jonnyneo53 Well.. a lot of Atheists arent JUST atheists, theres Agnostic Atheism (I don't believe, but not 100% sure) gnostic atheism (I am 100% sure god does NOT exist) Agnostic theism (I believe but im not sure) and gnostic theism (I am 100% sure God is real), we just happened to kinda.. shorten Gnostic Theist to just Theist, unfortunately it seems Ag. Atheist and Gnostic Atheism have been combined, but back onto your topic, after what i said id call myself an Agnostic Atheist
@chrism4n14 Some people think like you do, but that not the case. The original definition of Theist is "A belief in God" "A view or claim that God exists". Likewise, the original definition for Atheist (Anti-Theist) is "A belief that there is no God" "A view or Claim that God does not exist". Agnostic pretty much means "I dont know", or "Im not sure". If someone is not sure, but leans more towards Theism, he isn't an Agnostic Theist, because he still isn't sure. .......
@jonnyneo53 Ok hold on, sorry, "Atheist" or "A-theist" (prefix A- means without) so Atheism is without belief in religion. And here is my reasoning on why I say Agnostic Atheist or Gnostic Atheist: The Scientific Method. Basically, its how science is done. Basically, say you propose an idea, and have some evidence for it, you form a hypothesis/theory, then, other scientists come along, with new evidence, and disprove what you thought to be true......
@jonnyneo53 ...Now, plug in atheism, a lot of atheists are atheist because there is a lack of evidence in a divine being, BUT, say, God appears or something like that, real, hard, scientific, irrefutible evidence that God is real, and the atheists would have to reconsider their religious views, why? Because the scientific method demands that you accept the new evidence, and reform your conclusions based off of that, even if it means converting
@chrism4n14 ...... Atheism is simply the view that
1. There is no God.
That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist.
The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. ......
@chrism4n14 ....... Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism.
Now notice that what’s strong or weak here is not (1) itself, for atheists all regard that statement as true; rather what’s strong or weak is the case they offer in support of (1).
@chrism4n14 Basically, you can only be one of the three.
You eaither Believe in God, or you believe he doesnt exist. If your not sure but may be leaning toward one side or the other, your an agnostic. So now that you know this, I'll ask again: Are you a Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?
@jonnyneo53 And I'll try and rephrase here... Basically, Gnosticism (or knowing) is a seperate thing from Theism (belief in divine beings) you can be an agnostic weather forecaster, (you dont quite know what the weather is) or even a gnostic forecasters (you know what the weather is going to be) The religious side you take, Theism or Atheism, shouldnt stand on its own in terms of KNOWLEDGE, Atheism/Theism deals with BELIEF, gnosticism deals with KNOWING (not yelling at you btw)
@jonnyneo53 I'm just going to write down comments here on what Craig says, might seem fragmented but sorry :P
1. I don't think Atheism has ever been straightforward "God doesn't exist" its always been (at least as far as i know) "Lack of belief in divine beings" i think the "traditional definition" came from the interpretation of the reaction of atheism by theists.
2. Lack of belief in god is "A-theism" yes, but "god" and "religion/divinebeings" can be pretty interchangable, so...
@chrism4n14 In reply to your points in numerical order:
1) The original definition of Atheism comes from the Encyclopedia Philosophy, and its when a person claims that "There is no God".
2-3) 'Lack of belief' is a state of being. For us humans, its a phycological state. For example, my Cell Phone 'lacks belief in God'. In fact, in 'lacks belief' in anything! Its a cell phone! So that revised definition doesnt contribute at all to the question "Does God exist" .......
@chrism4n14 ..... not to mention that 'Lack of Believe" is not the Original definition of Atheism.
4-5) See my reply for 2-3. :p
6) /watch?v=03pyLpdbALQ
And for your last point, Theists claim "There is a God". Atheists (According to the Original definition) claim "There is no God". 2 Claims are being made here, therefore both parties have the burden of proof to support their claim.
1: If you watch "The Atheist Experience" you'll see a few atheists define atheism again and again
2-3: I don't think the phycological state of a person has any relevance on the "atheism is true/false" argument. basically I think saying "Atheism is the neither true nor false" -Craig, goes a little.. too far
And with Burden of Proof, again you mightve heard this counter argument.. but say i have a dragon... and that dragon breathes fire...
@jonnyneo53 and my dragon is purple... you go "ok lets see it" then I'll say "Oh its in my garage, but its invisible" "ok, if it breathes fire then we must be able to feel the heat right?" you'd say, and id reply "oh, nope, you cant feel my dragons heatless fire, and you cant touch it either, its invisible, intangible and doesnt produce heat,"
"So it doesn't exist, theres no proof of its existence" youd say "Well you can't prove its NOT there" i'd reply...
@chrism4n14 1) As Dr. Craig has mentioned before, Atheists have revised the definition of the word to mean "Lack of Belief", as a way of getting out of having to present evidence. So as time passes, most websites like dictionary,com and wikipedia adopted that revised definition. But it is NOT the original meaning of the word Atheism.
As for you purple dragon example, it IS possible to prove a universal negative. You just have to point out something.......
@chrism4n14 ....... thats self-contradictory. Like an "Invisible, Purple dragon." How can the dragon be purple if its invisible? I just disproved your dragon. Or for example Santa. People dont believe in santa, not because there is no evidence that he exists, but because there IS evidence that he DOESNT exist! There is nobody with a toy factory at the north poll, there is nobody flying a sled around the world delivering presents. All evidence that he doesnt exist. .......
@jonnyneo53 My point exactly, actually. How do we know God exists, he made us in our image, didn't he? But wasn't it in the bible that is says God just an incredibly bright light, so shouldnt we be incredibly bright lights?, how do we know if thats god, or just a sun we're looking at? And don't get me started on the "contradictions disprove this and that" argument. How can God be all loving, yet, in Noahs Ark the flood kills basically everybody minus a couple ppl 2nd 2 of each animal
@chrism4n14 God made us in his image in the sense of his love, his qualities, thought and purpose. Not physical image or we'd all be spiritual beings.
@chrism4n14 God had a Good reason to do what he did: "And the earth came to be ruined in the sight of the [true] God and the earth became filled with violence. So God saw the earth and, look! it was ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth.
After that God said to Noah: “The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth." (Genesis 6:11-13) .......
@jonnyneo53 "God works in mysterious ways"? really? What about the other millions of ANIMALS that died for human's sin, what about the people who did their best, believed in God with all their might, even did the occasional goat sacrifice, i mean, saying an entire planet is corrupt is kind of... eh.. you know, stretchin' it kinda. There were plenty of newborn babies that were drowned. Saying that EVERYONE laughed at Noah might be a little iffy, from a logical standpoint at least.
@chrism4n14 No, he doesnt work in mysterious ways. Its quite clear how he works.If anyone else would have loved God, he would have saved them as well.
@jonnyneo53 Btw one last thing,.. About the "old definition of Atheism" words' meanings can change. For example, the old, old, old definiton of Earth was basically a "flat disk" but now the current definition of its shape is "sphere with a slight squish towards the equator" that doesnt mean people should be using the old definition of the earth, just like we shouldnt be using the old definition of atheism
@jonnyneo53 I guess god's not so perfect after all. All the power in the universe to create whatever he likes and his first experiment was a complete failure. Kudos G.
@Jrhexum Human beings were the ones who messed up, not God. Humans had free will to obey or not to obey, they chose not to obey. Thats not God's fault; He remains perfect.
@jonnyneo53 If god was all knowing wouldn't his creation be perfection as well? A perfect omnipotent being would be unable of creating any less than perfect as he is perfection. Therefore if his long time master plan was predetermined we would have no free will, as as our actions were "set in stone" (catch that jibe?) so to speak. If everything was going to balance out to perfection in the end then all those people predetermined to go to "hell" were screwed from day. BS argument if you ask me.
@jonnyneo53 Due to the character restriction I'll reiterate. The interventionist Abrahamic god doesn't hold much weight with its moral and "logical" examples in the "holy" texts. I'm an avowed atheist, and I wont argue against the Spinozian god, as that has hasn't been disproved, although evidence of physics is weighted against it. How could we be made in an almighty's image if it is beyond comprehension. The Abrahamic god is a fallacy, although a Spinozian god is unlikely.
@Waredwr True, God is Omniscient, but he can choose whether to look to the future or not. For example, he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. He then stopped him and said it was a test of faith. If God already knew what was going to happen, why did he issue the test? Would it not have been a dishonest test if he already knew the outcome? He chooses the appropriate times to look to the future, such as prophecising, for example. .....
@jonnyneo53 He can choose to look into the future? No if he created the entirety of the universe and WAS omnipotent he would already know the outcome. God would not "play dice" so to speak. The Abrahamic god also wrestled with a mortal man within the testament, ending the bout by injuring his contestant. How could the almighty creator of everything wrestle a mortal? He could already know he would win, thus a hollow test.
@Waredwr If he is All-powerful, then he has the power to See the future If He Wants To! and when did he wrestle a mortal man?
God is loving. He never does anything without warning first. He gave all those people chances to repent by sending prophets to warn them. They didnt listen, therefore God has the right to Judge people.
@jonnyneo53 If he created every and was omnipotent he would know the outcome of everything from the moment of creation. Your logical is flawed and weak at best. In Genesis god wrestled with Jacob, and after a struggle ended the bout by injuring Jacob's hip. So God created homosexuals only to tell his followers to punish them by stoning them to death? Mixing wool and linen in your cloths or working on Sunday is punishable by death. Absolute nonsense.
@Waredwr 1) God can choose if he wants to see into the future or not. He gets to make that choice. If he had no choice over the matter, he wouldn't be ALL-powerfull, would he?
2) Jacob wrestled with an Angel of God.
3) God does not create homosexuals. Because Adam sinned, all men are imperfect sinners. thats NOT Gods doing.
4) God made the rules of the Sabbath. Not nonsense.
5) I do know the history of past religions. Where do you think ......
@Waredwr ...... they got the idea of God and started making there own pagan Gods? From Actual God! Other religions were branched off and warped from Gods teachings before the Bible was even written.
6) Maybe YOU should study the Bible carefully and learn some history.
@jonnyneo53 You've got to be kidding me. So pagans got their ideas of their gods from "actual" god, meaning he deceived them. Not this bullshit about "testing" them or flaws in your text. You text is carbon copies of those past, you have no clue of these religions as you ignore them. Saying the Story of Gilgamesh copied Noah ark? You sir are so thick headed its incredible.
@Waredwr The epic of Gilgamesh was written AFTER the great Flood. You clearly have no clue what im talking about as you are arraiving to conclutions that i didnt even hint at. Its useless to try and conversate with such a stubborn, irrational, ignorant person as yourself.
@jonnyneo53 Do you realize that if the great flood was as both the epic of Gilgamesh or Noah's ark as the call it was as both text described covered the entire earth at once over this raining period, it would bury Mt. Everest by 22ft, if it was 5 miles deep as the texts say. How would the writers know it was 5 miles deep? anything not on the boat would have DIED.
@jonnyneo53 You ignore the loopholes and short comings clearly seen in these texts and accept it as blind truth. I'm stubborn and irrational? You sir have delusions of grandeur beyond repair. You still have not counter the points surrounding evolution and Genesis 1:12-16. I'm Waiting.
@Waredwr I can easily explain the "Problems" you are presenting rationally and logically, but i wont for 2 reasons.
1) Not enough Characters in the comments.
2) No matter how rational or logical or great an explanation i give you, you will still reject it, cuz you just HAVE to be right all the time. Even if God himself explained it to you, you'd still be stubborn and reject it. So whats the point?
Truthfully, I believe this video to be proof of a godless life more than anything. It shows that all there is left is mockery and hedonism.
DavidOchabski 1 day ago
this guy is the worst
lravenhill 1 week ago
idiots this has got nothing to do with proving if God exists or not...the fact that God exists at least makes the religious person happy, thinking that when he dies he will go to heaven....you think when you die your fat ass will get eaten by worms and shit...well obv that wouldn't make a normal person happy so why believe in that bullshit. Your believes dont make you happy, dont satisfy you, dont do shit. It's all about personal satisfying and how you feel about yourself you fucking daft cunt
Agent5553 2 weeks ago
@Agent5553 I would rather know a tough truth than being trapped in a rosy red lie.
Do you feel the same way about drugs? They make the person happy after all.
Kabitu1 1 week ago
@Agent5553 This was a joke, fool. And by the way, we naturalists don't "believe" that we decompose when we die. Belief is a faith-based assertion, much like the God Hypothesis or the Heaven/Hell fairy-tale. As far as we can tell, decomposition is the only thing that happens when you die. Care to know why you don't see dead bodies lying there in their coffins 100 years after death? Are you so stupid as to assert that human bodies don't rot? Your line of reasoning is, to be quite honest, PATHETIC.
EinsteinxtremeRoblox 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christards and muslims are INFINITELY more bullying than any atheists.
Same way free-market anti-socialist capitalists are WAY more bullying than pro-socialists and pro-communists.
mphello 2 weeks ago
Find the word "GOD" on a YouTube video, and there's bound to be someone fighting in the comment section. Lol
iiHateSouljaBoy 2 weeks ago 13
@iiHateSouljaBoy we all get high on vindication
FranticMydlo 1 week ago
@FranticMydlo And it feels great :D
iiHateSouljaBoy 1 week ago
I don't feel like reading the comments below. but I'll attest to what I see here and give a factual statement.
Macro-evolution is just a bunch of micro-evolution, just as 24-pack of soda is just a bunch of... sodas. If you believe in soda, you can get it in many different packs. If you believe in micro-evolution- you're admitting macro-evolution does exist. They go hand in hand. If you believe in God, fine. You have every right to. But half merged theistic evolution is a confused thing.
InstinctualJealousy 2 weeks ago
Before we can say there is no god, we have to ask what is god, who is god. There is no man in the sky. But is there something deeper within us and ourselves.
d3r2000 3 weeks ago
That is one of the funniest things I have EVER heard!!!!!!!!
cf19d 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW, EVIL by definition does not exist, only Gd does. EVIL is to live backwards. Anything that is, is also good. Nothing is evil, literally, for evil is the lack of something, which cannot also exist, again, by definition. FREEWILL is Gd. . You are talking about animals. WE-R humans... Elevate friend: goo.gl / GN4D
roboeco 3 weeks ago
How long it takes to climax? Really? That's the argument?
How about the ages of peak sexual appetite?
recalibration 3 weeks ago
A very good scientific argument there, I'd like to see a Christian come up with an answer on that.
MrMeepmoop 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof of evolution 3: the church
I can keep pointing out stuff like this but you'll never even consider that its real because the people in charge tell us to go to church. People who didnt belive in church or god were ex-communicated, or killed during the inquisition(why would they do that?), thus only gullible people who reject fact where able to pass on their genes. Rinse and repeat with enough churches and only people who belive in god will be left
luzzo422 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof of evolution 2: why Rabbits are cute
Humans eat rabbits. Some rabbits where too cute for the person to bring itself to kill it(e.g. prized pigs). Over enough time with enough humans around only cute rabbits are able to pass on its genes, hence all rabbits are cute(except for chinese people they dont count because they arent humans xD)
luzzo422 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof of evolution 1: why fruit tastes good
Monkeys eat fruit. If the fruit tastes bad the monkey spits it out and it is left to its own devices. if it tastes good the monkey digests it, unable to digest the seeds they come out with monkey feces which act as fertilizer, giving it a greater chance to pass on its genes. Rinse and Repeat only fruit that tastes good can pass on its genes in the presence of enough monkeys
luzzo422 3 weeks ago
@lazyrobot I don't have as much faith as you do to be an atheist
DanielGlock26 3 weeks ago
@lazyrobot47 what has science proven? Something cannot come from that which does not exist, so what created existence and why? And so and and so, the answer would be impossible to reach with science cause you would spend an eternity in doing so
DanielGlock26 3 weeks ago
when you start to think and gain information, that's when religion steps aside.
dkthg 3 weeks ago
I believe and trust in God, the word Jesus Christ, if your an atheist I have a question for you.. Lets turn things around abit.. What evidence do you have for atheism?
DanielGlock26 3 weeks ago
@DanielGlock26 Science.
lazyrobot47 3 weeks ago
@DanielGlock26
You say any question cannot be reached with science because it'd take an eternity to do so. Did you not hear what you just said? You still assume that it can be reached with science. That means even you have a hole in your faith. I'd rather wait an eternity, even if I die before that day, to wait for the right answer than to accept the quick and easy answer because I'm not a coward.
Haloya101 3 weeks ago
@OP Which part of the irreducible complexity argument are you not necessarily for? The Flagellum argument is bullshit because every part of the flagellum is seen and known in other functional roles (with just ten parts, it is a protein pump of sorts). With the eye, there is evidence that each step from simple photoreceptors, to eyespots, to compound eyes and simple eyes (prob wrong terminology there... insect and mammalian eyes for example) exists and has an evolutionary advantage.
dumbo800 3 weeks ago
Hahaha. Man long sex is the best! So much more pleasurable when its long, guys have a much bigger organs then in a quicky. I wouldn't want a woman to cum straight away, there would be no intimacy in that. Plus God designed it so that woman can have multiple by the time I have one. That's real love when you can give that much pleasure to another and only take a little for yourself. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Undeterminable 4 weeks ago
@Undeterminable
Living proof that if god designed this god 'ole boy, he fucked up BIGTIME!
blindedbyturds 3 weeks ago
@blindedbyturds Haha. Well each to their own. Some are lovers others are fighters. All with their own purpose as defined by themselves, God or no God.
Undeterminable 3 weeks ago
@blindedbyturds Actually, according to the Bible we were perfect before the fall so that argument doesn't logically make sense from a disproving God point. As I've said before, there is no way to prove either side of the argument from a hard facts stand point.
Sammo212 3 weeks ago
To the antagonistic / smartass atheists, and to the mindless/ overbearing religious folk,
FUCK YOU.
love,
SWproductions100
SWProductions100 4 weeks ago
I like the fact all those smart people on here engage in debates over this an that... you may have missed this but... arguing over the internet is like winning the paralympics. You may have won but youre still retarded xD same old smae old...
USEYAHOO 1 month ago
@USEYAHOO go out and do something better with your time please? would ya? stop wasting electricity and precious lifetime on youtube... you all too smart for that xD
USEYAHOO 1 month ago
@USEYAHOO So you came onto the internet to argue against... arguing on the internet?
By the way, the Paralympics and the Special Olympics are two completely different things. But at least now we know which one you belong in...
strayster2 4 weeks ago
Romans 2:6-8, the bible is very clear about
"bad people going to hell" kiddo. "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury."
It is also clear if you dont accept god and Jesus you will also go to hell.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr "there will be wrath and fury" does not 1), say anything about wrath and fury being eternal, and 2), says nothing about fire or hell.
Hell is a false teaching and is not Biblical.
Also, choosing not to see the future and being infallible is NOT a contradiction. I deny evolution because the "Evidence" is VERY debatable, and there in fact is evidence against it, these Biblical "Fails" you mentioned can easily be harmonized.....
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53
"I deny evolution because the "Evidence" is VERY debatable, and there in fact is evidence against it"
Fortunately for humanity, fact doesn't need your personal approval. Google "nylon eating bacteria".
(1/1 JN00)
recalibration 3 weeks ago
@recalibration Yes, the Nylon eating Bacteria is a great example of Micro-Evolution, which has been observed many times. Macro-Evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed and there is plenty of evidence against it. Note that I said EVIDENCE, not my personal approval or opinion.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
Speciation has been observed. Just take 5 seconds to google "examples of observed speciation" First two links should have all the information you need regarding that matter.
Micro and macro evolution are the exact same process. If there was evidence that demonstrated that "macro evolution" as incorrect in any way, then I suggest you turn in your scientific paper for peer review, because that would be nobel-prize winning material.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Micro and Macro Evolution is different. Mutation is one of the main foundations of Macro-Evolution. Over 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular has shown that not one new species has ever emerged. If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"Mutation is one of the main foundations of Macro-Evolution."
Mutation has the exact same role for evolution both macro and micro, since it's the same process. Where are you sourcing this information from?
You didn't look at the sites, did you? There are plenty of examples of speciation that have been observed.
An "original" species does not "transform" into a new one, that's not evolution. You don't seem to understand how speciation works, let alone what evolution is.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
You know dogs? Their ancestors weren't originally like that. It was because of us humans that dogs today are different from their wolf cousins. They originated from the wolves' ancestors and we humans were there to observe it every step of the way which is why we have poodles now.
When you say "transform" you imply that a wolf will turn into a dog. No, the wolf and the dog shared ancestry and branched off. Speciation.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
The evidence for evolution is hardly debatable, since we currently have 0 scientific papers showing that any part of the evolutionary theory is incorrect.
If you are looking for an example of, say, an animal that is transitioning fish to amphibian, then a good example would be the mudskipper fish. Its leg-like fins are still evolving as well as its new ability to take in oxygen from the air with its throat, suggesting progressive evolution rather than sudden design.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 "An "original" species does not "transform" into a new one, that's not evolution"
Um... yes it is. A species, through 'Mutation' and 'Natural selection', becomes an entirley new species. What scientists call "Speciation" is just minor changes within the SAME kind of plant or animal, not an Entirely new species. You're the one who clearly doesnt know what evolution means. Talk to me again when you learn a little more about evolution.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
No, speciation is not a "minor change" within the same "kind". You don't seem to know your scientific terms.
Please show me where you're sourcing this information from.
This is not pokemon. A species through mutation and natural selection will adapt to its environment. Speciation occurs when one or more groups of the same animal becomes separated from the entire population and evolves separately to the point where the two groups are too different to reproduce.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Ok, I dont know where you are getting your information about Dogs. Dogs lived more than 2000 years ago, so how can "humans [be] there to observe it every step of the way"? and again, you're wrong. Talk to me when you learn something about the actual theory of evolution.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
You may not know this, but humans lived more than 2000 years ago too... We know speciation occurred because we were there and it's because of us that we have poodles today instead of more wolves.
"Talk to me when you learn something about the actual theory of evolution."
Clearly you are sourcing this info from pseudo-scientific creationist sites. I can't think of any other sources that would misrepresent the theory of evolution so grossly.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Nope, I get my sources from actual scientific research. Not all scientists agree with evolution, you know. And if there is anyone grossly misrepresenting the theory of evolution, its you.
"[Dogs] originated from the wolves' ancestors"
"you imply that a wolf will turn into a dog. No, the wolf and the dog shared ancestry and branched off"
Contradicting yourself there, slick?
Seriously tho, you dont really know much about evolution. Please learn, then we'll talk.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
"Nope, I get my sources from actual scientific research."
You do realize that you need reliable sources to do research right..? You can't even provide me with one (1) source. From what you're telling me, you're just getting this stuff from your head based off of unknown sources.
"Contradicting yourself there, slick?"
Wolves and dogs sharing ancestry is not a wolf turning into a dog.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 So If I dont provide you with sources, its automaticaly 'Not reliable'. But if you dont provide me with sources (which you havnt), then I just have to take your word for it... Interesting. And yes, I have looked into many sites regarding evolution. From Wikipedia to Talk-Origens. So, unlike you, I am well versed in the theory of Evolution. And its not lack of evidence for evolution, its evidence against it.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
"And its not lack of evidence for evolution, its evidence against it."
I suggest you turn in your scientific paper for peer review regarding evidence against evolution, you could earn a nobel prize for that if it's correct.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Here are a few of my sources to shut you up:
Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.
Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Expectations in Mutation Breeding,” 2005, p. 48, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig. ....
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 ... Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 48-51.
Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
Where in here does it show that speciation is "minor changes" within the same "kind"?
Where does it demonstrate that (say) a wolf would transform into a dog rather than wolves and dogs sharing ancestry according to the evolutionary theory?
You still haven't looked at the link I asked you to look at, have you?
Should also check out the video recalibration suggested, pretty good info right there.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 "You still haven't looked at the link I asked you to look at, have you?"
Um... you didnt provide a link. You just told me to google "observed speciation". I told you already that I studied this from Wikipedia to TalkOrigins, which has a long list of "Observed Speciation".
"I suggest you turn in your scientific paper for peer review regarding evidence against evolution, you could earn a nobel prize for that if it's correct."
... I showed you the evidence....
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 .....against it. I even provided some sources. What are you, retarded? Sorry to insult, but you seem to be so stuck on the idea of evolution that you choose to ignore the arguments i present, you present dumb arguments which have almost nothing to do with the theory of evolution and apperantly like to twist my words around. Its frustrating how retarded your replies are. You wanna give a good reply? Look at Recalibration. He at least provided a credible source.
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
DNA is inconsistent with what we would expect intelligently designed DNA to look like. We humans shouldn't have dormant genes for forming tails, chickens should not have genes for teeth. It's not only unnecessary, but at times HARMFUL (like painful wisdom teeth that I mentioned). If not by evolution, then there should be no reason for our design to include useless/inefficient/harmful traits.
Dangerous bacteria is not an intelligent design at all.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago 14
@WitchHunter93 Science has not come to fully understand DNA in explaining why these "dormant" genes. Science could, in the near future, and with more advanced technology, discover that they misinterpreted their findings in the past or were simply not able to see something clearly with the limited technology at hand.
I love science but I take it all with a grain of salt- because history has taught us that one day science can make a claim and the next day change it/throw it out/or re-define it.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
Science has taught us that it is self-correcting, not that it just comes up with new ideas today to replace the ideas from yesterday. History has taught us that the scientific method is consistently the most reliable method for assessing all the evidence presented and coming to the best conclusion possible.
Next time you get your flu shot, be aware that that is the same science you are taking with a grain of salt.
WitchHunter93 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 So you agree with me. Then would you also agree that no scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say, on scientific theories, "this is a FACT" since scientific theories are always considered to be works in progress.
Also, as far as flu is concerned, I prefer natural alternatives to the concoctions put together in a lab.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
Uhm, you don't seem to know what a scientific theory is..
We have the theory of gravity and we have the facts of gravity. It is a fact that smaller objects can be attracted by the gravitational field from a larger object, the theory explains why this happens through empirical evidence. So, yes, scientists can say X is a scientific fact, because a scientific fact is established by the preponderance of evidence.
Try the smallpox vaccine then
WitchHunter93 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Uhm, you don't seem to be capable of consistency- by your own admission you stated that science is "self-correcting". Because of science and its ever-evolving nature, I believe (since you've side-stepped us to gravity) that as much as we know about gravity, we cannot say with 100% certainty that we know all there is to possibly know. That is my point.
Smallpox is contained in a couple labs here. Were you sarcastically alluding to the fact that it doesn't exist anymore?
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
I agree, we can't say 100% that we know everything. If we did know everything then science would stop. However, you're implying that because we can't be 100% sure that therefore you get to take it with a grain of salt.
When something is a scientific fact it does not mean it's 100% certain, it is what is best backed up with empirical evidence.
I know about smallpox, my point was that you are taking the same science with a grain of salt that invented the vaccine for smallpox.
WitchHunter93 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 "When something is a scientific fact it does not mean it's 100% certain, it is what is best backed up with empirical evidence."
Do you agree that empirical evidence can change with time (better technology/better understanding)?
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
Empirical evidence can be demonstrated to be false later on, and as such, scientific facts can be demonstrated to be false.
Does that mean that the scientific method is unreliable? No, it means the scientific method cares about what is demonstrably true, which is what separates science from religion.
WitchHunter93 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 You have to remember that the scientific method is performed by human beings. Human beings, being imperfect, have the tendency to overlook things or get sloppy, which can bring about sloppy or inaccurate results. Whatever tools we may wield, there is always the probability of error.
And what cannot be demonstrable today, may perhaps be demonstrable tomorrow. Only at the end of our existence will we be able to look back and see what we've accomplished definitively.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
Everyone knows that, it's common sense. The fact that we correct our mistakes is the reason we've cured smallpox and have been able to fly to the moon.
You seem to be under the impression that if it's not 100% certain then it should be taken with a grain of salt, which is counterproductive to making new discoveries, so good luck with that.
WitchHunter93 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Explain how it is counterproductive to making new discoveries please.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@82dr89bg
lol really?
If science was taken with a grain of salt rather than being seriously assessed through empirical evidence, then we wouldn't have the theory of gravity and germ theory. We would not have scientists taking the scientific method seriously enough to invent vaccines, fly to the moon, or design the computer that you used to write that comment. We wouldn't know that it takes pluto to orbit the sun every 248 years... I can keep going on and on.
Science builds from itself
WitchHunter93 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 you've clearly misunderstood me while at the same time kind of agreeing with me in not so many different words. Happens all the time here on the 'ol youtube...
82dr89bg 1 week ago
@82dr89bg Ah, but until then, you can't say "I don't know what this is, so GOD". Because you know what? That's called arrogance and stupidity. You are one of those people who worships a God of the Gaps, which means you poke around in what science doesn't know (which is actually encouraged by scientists themselves, by the way) and freak out and say "HAHA, BOYS! WE'LL NEVER FIGURE THIS OUT!". Unfortunately for you, God is running out of gaps to hide in, surely but slowly. Enjoy the future, bud.
EinsteinxtremeRoblox 1 week ago
@EinsteinxtremeRoblox My friend, I wish you the best in YOUR future of a false reality built up by the non-supportive pillars of existential nihilism. I would see you as arrogant and perhaps less-intelligent in sharing your view on something you clearly know NOTHING about.
Cheers.
82dr89bg 1 week ago
@82dr89bg Could you elaborate on that, please? I don't think our existence is pointless, as I believe that we are the ones who give it meaning, and I don't depend on ancient books of flawed mythology defended by brainwashed people to give me meaning in life. Meaning in life comes from love of family, joy from friendship and simple things, and many other sources. It does not come from a supernatural relationship with a being who creates lakes of fire where innocents burn forever.
EinsteinxtremeRoblox 1 week ago
@82dr89bg Can you demonstrate any of the supernatural claims of religion to be true? I've been to church on several occasions myself. It's an atmosphere of general happiness and social joys. You get to see friends and there is singing and laughter and stuff, but it's all unfortunately based off of violent, hateful, divisive mythology. There isn't a single benefit of religion that you cannot attain through purely secular means.
EinsteinxtremeRoblox 1 week ago
@WitchHunter93 OOPS- *why these dormant genes *exist* (see first sentence below).
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 ...or how about the sinuses of our bipedal race that are oriented to drain in a quadripedal stance... like our quadripedal ancestors. ...or the fact that the genetic code of mitochondria and choloroplasts is different than all eukarytic cells... or the pelvic outlet of female humans being dangerously too small to permit an infant head to pass in order to maintain a bipedal stance... or well I've run out of room
8584zender 3 days ago
@jonnyneo53
Yeah, cheers mate; I do try. Accepting someone's belief purely w/ out falsifiability is naive & makes you susceptible to manipulation. Otherwise it's all opinion (or speculation) & well, we all know what they're like right? XD
(1/1 JN04)
recalibration 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
I don't think you even cared to look at the two links I told you to try. You've already decided on your own that there's no evidence for evolution by appealing to anonymous sources. It's not that you don't believe it due to lack of scientific evidence, it's that you don't understand what evolution is and you purposely reject the evidence presented.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WitchHunter93 Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers are exactly the same as creatards.
mphello 2 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53 You are seriously retarded.
DTaurelion 3 weeks ago
@DTaurelion lol. You dont understand evolution, so you call me retarded? Smart. ;)
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
You are aware the difference between micro & macro evol. is just the amount of time elapsed so the micro incrementally builds?
You're wholly wrong. As Waredwr stated a wk ago, _our very biology_ proves macro. Full stop. See the presentation by Dr. Ken Miller (Biology), Prof @ Brown, present one of the results of the Human Genome project. [ watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk ] 4m23s running time. This knowledge dates prior to ~2006.
Particularly, you'll want to note 2:42 & 3:44.
(1/1 JN01)
recalibration 3 weeks ago
@recalibration Actually, Micro-evolution is slight changes within a plant or animal kind. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.
Macro-evolution, however, are big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men.
The video you linked, he speaks of our DNA, and how similar it is to apes, particularly chromosome #2, where he says that it 'Fused' from....
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
Macro-evolution is not big changes. It is many small changes over an extended period of time. The process is exactly the same. talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/comdesc/
I suppose I must send you the thing manually.
Also, you want a fish to amphibian? Look at the mudskipper fish. The fact that its fins are still developing into legs and its ability to take oxygen from the air isn't entirely effective points to the fish still in transition, rather than design.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@WitchHunter93 Great example. There is also fossil evidence from the species Tiktaalik which lived 375 million years ago, which was a member of the family that made the transition from fish into amphibians. Another great example, which is still with us, is the Queensland Lungfish. However, in spite of this, creationists will still stick their fingers in their ears and scream "there's no evidence for evolution, how come blah blah blah....".
93Cobalt 2 weeks ago
@jonnyneo53
Woops, failed link. Whatever, just google "evidence for macro evolution" should bring you to that webpage. It explains what macro-evolution is and is not, simple enough.
It is not a big change, it is many small changes (or micros).
If we are designed then we have a prankster designer who has made the mudskippers seemingly developing fin-legs, our seemingly vestigial wisdom teeth that HURT us, and every type of deadly bacteria that contains DNA.
WitchHunter93 3 weeks ago
@recalibration ...with other DNA from our 'apelike ancestors'.
Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.
Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?
jonnyneo53 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
recalibration 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
recalibration 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
recalibration 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
@3:44:
"It's there, it's testable, it confirms the prediction of evolution. How would ID explain it?"
(2/3 JN02)
recalibration 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
"Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?"
Now you've just gone full retard, or as I like to call it, crossing the line betwn follower & fanatic. Forming questions of argumentum ad ignorantiam does *not* refute the fact *reality overrides faith*.
How many revisions did that god need before he created a model that was actually within spec of his own image (Gen 1:27)? See? I can do that too.
(3/3 JN02)
recalibration 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@recalibration "Now you've just gone full retard, or as I like to call it, crossing the line betwn follower & fanatic"
Ok? So believing in intelligent design is being a Fanatic?
"reality overrides faith"
Faith is based on Evidence. Its called Faith, not BLIND Faith.
"How many revisions did that god need before he created a model that was actually within spec of his own image?"
That question makes no sense. Revisions? What are you talking about?
jonnyneo53 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonnyneo53
Okay, I'm guessing your audio cut @ 2:42:
"So we can scan our genome, & you know what, if we don't find that chromosome, evolution is in trouble. Well guess what? It's chrom. #2. Our chrom. #2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chrom.. [...] Chrom. 2 is unique to our lineage, it emerges as the result of the head to head fusion of two chrom. that remain seperate in other primates [...] The precise fusion site has been located @ base # 114 455 823 to 114 455 838."
(1/3 JN02)
recalibration 3 weeks ago
@Waredwr .....with proper knowledge of Context, The times in which it was written, and an understanding of the language it was written in, and YOU sir, started with the Ad Hominems by calling me a Ignorrant Twat.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 You started with personal attacks by claiming I was ignorant of both historical and biblical knowledge at the beginning of our argument. You did not disprove my points, you attacked me. Hell IS mentioned in the bible, I will list several other passages :
Daniel 12:2,3 Matthew 25:46 John 5:28 Revelation 20:14,15 Matthew 25:41 Revelation 20:10 Matthew 13:41,50 Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8
Waredwr 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 These are a few of dozen that list hell as a post-death place of torment for all eternity for sins (including rejection of god or Jesus) after judgement. Biblical fails cannot be harmonized, especially the passages i listed in my early arguement.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr ............. Alright. Just to shut you up ill present an arguement against hell. But in the Personal Inbox, not here. I hate the character limits.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 I'll be waiting, just read the passages i linked below, and it nullifies any notion that hell is not a biblical teaching, it outlines everything I've mentioned hell is believed to be. Anything other than that is nitpicking at its finest.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr Sent...
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 I have also sent my response(s). One with my text answer with a video attachment, and the second with another video attachment. Enjoy, answer when you are able.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Human evolution cannot be disputes, the main fault with evolution has been amended. primates have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Only possibility of the loss of a pair of chromosomes would be through fusions at the telomere and centrimere. This fusion has been found at chromosome pair 2. This links us and primates with a common ancestor. IRREFUTABLE. Radio-Carbon dating may only accurately test up to 6000 years ago, but it is not the method used by science in dating anymore.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Other methods (which can be found through simple Google searches for those who are ignorant in the matter at hand) are accurate to millions, if not billions of years. This means no adam and eve creationist story of an earth that is 6000-10000 years old is possible.
Waredwr 1 month ago
One ignorant man.
jimu57 1 month ago
Interesting how atheists have no proof that God doesnt exist...they accuse theists of having blind faith but atheists themselves seem to be walking inna tonne of blind faith
7semakula 1 month ago
@7semakula Atheists have a tonne of blind faith because they have no proof that God doesn't exist, eh? Well then, so you can have an unbiased perspective, let's get off the topic of god! Let's talk about godzilla then. I could ask you if you believe godzilla is real and wait for a response, but for expedience, I'll assume the answer is NO. So. What proof do YOU have that Godzilla doesn't exist? JUSTIFY your FAITH in Godzilla's nonexistence, or admit it to be, as you say, BLIND faith.
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 month ago
@medexamtoolsdotcom "What proof do YOU have that Godzilla doesn't exist? "
Easy. There is no giant monster that lives in the ocean off the coast of Japan. There is historical proof as to when Godzilla was released in theatres. There are eyewitnesses that where in the room when the idea of Godzilla was created and pitched to be made a movie. Plenty of evidence to prove Godzilla is not real. So, you have any evidence that God doesnt exist?
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Oh, ok. I can do that. I'll use the same argument against god that you used against godzilla then. I am sure your own argument must be airtight, but I will leave it up to you to re-evaluate it yourself if you want. Here goes: South Park is just a cartoon. There are plenty of people involved with its production who can confirm that it is not real. God is a character in South Park. He is played by a human voice actor, an actual man who can be interviewed. God is disproved.
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 month ago
@medexamtoolsdotcom Godzilla was created by Tomoyuki Tanaka in 1954. That is historical evidence to prove that Godzilla is not a real monster, just an invention of a Japanese man in the 1950's. South Park didnt "invent" God. They based there 'God' character on actual God, which you have yet to disprove. Nice try though.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Sigh. You're not going to beat me here, though I'll admit you're putting up a better fight than I expected.
Prove that Tomoyuki Tanaka invented godzilla. Prove that godzilla didn't already exist before that. Prove that godzilla doesn't exist completely independently of the godzilla movies, or of planet Earth for that matter. Prove that Tomoyuki Tanaka wasn't a luminary, a prophet, who received knowledge of Godzilla's existence telepathically from Godzilla himself.
medexamtoolsdotcom 1 month ago
@medexamtoolsdotcom Well, hundreds of websites confirm that Tomoyuki Tanaka did indeed invent Godzilla. Godzilla is not based on any real giant monster, in fact it was described as being "a cross between a gorilla and a whale", thus discarding the idea that it exists independantly from the Movies or earth. and Tomoyuki Tanaka never claimed to be a prophet, thus discarding telepathic divinity. Real-life Godzilla Disproved.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 So you're basically saying Godzilla had a creator? Tomoyuki Tanaka, right? So lets boil this down into its simplist form here...
Premise 1: Tomoyuki created Godzilla
Premise 2: In the one guy's Godzilla analogy, and your refutation to that, you're basically comparing Godzilla to god
Conclusion: As you have put it, God needed a creator, because in your counterargument to medex, Someone created Godzilla, so Something must have created God.
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 I never compared God to Godzilla. His challenge was simply to prove a universal negative, such as: "Godzilla Doesn't Exist". My reffutation of Godzilla was to point out that it was the fictional Creation/Invention of Tomoyuki Tanaka. Thats just ONE way to prove Godzilla isnt real. Another way would be to point out something that is self-contradictory. That does not, however, imply that God must have a creator.
/watch?v=EWiEVNqKhRc
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 The video you linked me to was of William Craig, a video that had comments disabled along with the like bar, strange... But, as long as we're here, let me just warn you, if you are going to keep up the "Prove God doesn't exist" argument, you're going to get real familiar with the term Burden of Proof. And as a spectator to many arguments about BoP, you (theists in general) tend to look bad, thats a spectators observation, not an atheistic debater's.
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 I linked the video so you can see the content of the video, not the like bar or comments.
Now let me ask you this - Are you a:
1) Theist - "There is a God"
2) Atheist - "There is no God"
or 3) Agnostic - "I dont know if there is a God or not"
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Well.. a lot of Atheists arent JUST atheists, theres Agnostic Atheism (I don't believe, but not 100% sure) gnostic atheism (I am 100% sure god does NOT exist) Agnostic theism (I believe but im not sure) and gnostic theism (I am 100% sure God is real), we just happened to kinda.. shorten Gnostic Theist to just Theist, unfortunately it seems Ag. Atheist and Gnostic Atheism have been combined, but back onto your topic, after what i said id call myself an Agnostic Atheist
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 Some people think like you do, but that not the case. The original definition of Theist is "A belief in God" "A view or claim that God exists". Likewise, the original definition for Atheist (Anti-Theist) is "A belief that there is no God" "A view or Claim that God does not exist". Agnostic pretty much means "I dont know", or "Im not sure". If someone is not sure, but leans more towards Theism, he isn't an Agnostic Theist, because he still isn't sure. .......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Ok hold on, sorry, "Atheist" or "A-theist" (prefix A- means without) so Atheism is without belief in religion. And here is my reasoning on why I say Agnostic Atheist or Gnostic Atheist: The Scientific Method. Basically, its how science is done. Basically, say you propose an idea, and have some evidence for it, you form a hypothesis/theory, then, other scientists come along, with new evidence, and disprove what you thought to be true......
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 ...Now, plug in atheism, a lot of atheists are atheist because there is a lack of evidence in a divine being, BUT, say, God appears or something like that, real, hard, scientific, irrefutible evidence that God is real, and the atheists would have to reconsider their religious views, why? Because the scientific method demands that you accept the new evidence, and reform your conclusions based off of that, even if it means converting
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 ...... Atheism is simply the view that
1. There is no God.
That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If you don’t think (1) is true, then you are not, by definition, an atheist.
The distinction you want to draw comes in when we consider the justification for (1). Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. ......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 ....... Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism.
Now notice that what’s strong or weak here is not (1) itself, for atheists all regard that statement as true; rather what’s strong or weak is the case they offer in support of (1).
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 Basically, you can only be one of the three.
You eaither Believe in God, or you believe he doesnt exist. If your not sure but may be leaning toward one side or the other, your an agnostic. So now that you know this, I'll ask again: Are you a Theist, Atheist, or Agnostic?
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 And I'll try and rephrase here... Basically, Gnosticism (or knowing) is a seperate thing from Theism (belief in divine beings) you can be an agnostic weather forecaster, (you dont quite know what the weather is) or even a gnostic forecasters (you know what the weather is going to be) The religious side you take, Theism or Atheism, shouldnt stand on its own in terms of KNOWLEDGE, Atheism/Theism deals with BELIEF, gnosticism deals with KNOWING (not yelling at you btw)
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 You know what time it is? Thats right!!! Its time for another Dr. Craig video! :D
Dont worry, this one has comments and a Like bar.
/watch?v=Uq4naafbleo
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 I'm just going to write down comments here on what Craig says, might seem fragmented but sorry :P
1. I don't think Atheism has ever been straightforward "God doesn't exist" its always been (at least as far as i know) "Lack of belief in divine beings" i think the "traditional definition" came from the interpretation of the reaction of atheism by theists.
2. Lack of belief in god is "A-theism" yes, but "god" and "religion/divinebeings" can be pretty interchangable, so...
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 In reply to your points in numerical order:
1) The original definition of Atheism comes from the Encyclopedia Philosophy, and its when a person claims that "There is no God".
2-3) 'Lack of belief' is a state of being. For us humans, its a phycological state. For example, my Cell Phone 'lacks belief in God'. In fact, in 'lacks belief' in anything! Its a cell phone! So that revised definition doesnt contribute at all to the question "Does God exist" .......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 ..... not to mention that 'Lack of Believe" is not the Original definition of Atheism.
4-5) See my reply for 2-3. :p
6) /watch?v=03pyLpdbALQ
And for your last point, Theists claim "There is a God". Atheists (According to the Original definition) claim "There is no God". 2 Claims are being made here, therefore both parties have the burden of proof to support their claim.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 @jonnyneo53
1: If you watch "The Atheist Experience" you'll see a few atheists define atheism again and again
2-3: I don't think the phycological state of a person has any relevance on the "atheism is true/false" argument. basically I think saying "Atheism is the neither true nor false" -Craig, goes a little.. too far
And with Burden of Proof, again you mightve heard this counter argument.. but say i have a dragon... and that dragon breathes fire...
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 and my dragon is purple... you go "ok lets see it" then I'll say "Oh its in my garage, but its invisible" "ok, if it breathes fire then we must be able to feel the heat right?" you'd say, and id reply "oh, nope, you cant feel my dragons heatless fire, and you cant touch it either, its invisible, intangible and doesnt produce heat,"
"So it doesn't exist, theres no proof of its existence" youd say "Well you can't prove its NOT there" i'd reply...
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 1) As Dr. Craig has mentioned before, Atheists have revised the definition of the word to mean "Lack of Belief", as a way of getting out of having to present evidence. So as time passes, most websites like dictionary,com and wikipedia adopted that revised definition. But it is NOT the original meaning of the word Atheism.
As for you purple dragon example, it IS possible to prove a universal negative. You just have to point out something.......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 ....... thats self-contradictory. Like an "Invisible, Purple dragon." How can the dragon be purple if its invisible? I just disproved your dragon. Or for example Santa. People dont believe in santa, not because there is no evidence that he exists, but because there IS evidence that he DOESNT exist! There is nobody with a toy factory at the north poll, there is nobody flying a sled around the world delivering presents. All evidence that he doesnt exist. .......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 My point exactly, actually. How do we know God exists, he made us in our image, didn't he? But wasn't it in the bible that is says God just an incredibly bright light, so shouldnt we be incredibly bright lights?, how do we know if thats god, or just a sun we're looking at? And don't get me started on the "contradictions disprove this and that" argument. How can God be all loving, yet, in Noahs Ark the flood kills basically everybody minus a couple ppl 2nd 2 of each animal
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 God made us in his image in the sense of his love, his qualities, thought and purpose. Not physical image or we'd all be spiritual beings.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 But then again if God can't be seen how do we know he is a "bright ball of light" as one of my friends put it?
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 I dont recall God being called a 'bright ball of light'
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 Rewatch the video. I dont think you understand Dr. Craigs explanation of Atheism.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 God had a Good reason to do what he did: "And the earth came to be ruined in the sight of the [true] God and the earth became filled with violence. So God saw the earth and, look! it was ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth.
After that God said to Noah: “The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth." (Genesis 6:11-13) .......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 "God works in mysterious ways"? really? What about the other millions of ANIMALS that died for human's sin, what about the people who did their best, believed in God with all their might, even did the occasional goat sacrifice, i mean, saying an entire planet is corrupt is kind of... eh.. you know, stretchin' it kinda. There were plenty of newborn babies that were drowned. Saying that EVERYONE laughed at Noah might be a little iffy, from a logical standpoint at least.
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@chrism4n14 No, he doesnt work in mysterious ways. Its quite clear how he works.If anyone else would have loved God, he would have saved them as well.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Btw one last thing,.. About the "old definition of Atheism" words' meanings can change. For example, the old, old, old definiton of Earth was basically a "flat disk" but now the current definition of its shape is "sphere with a slight squish towards the equator" that doesnt mean people should be using the old definition of the earth, just like we shouldnt be using the old definition of atheism
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Well it was fun arguing with you, not to ditch or anything but its pretty late right now where I am. Nice talking with you, see ya
chrism4n14 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 I guess god's not so perfect after all. All the power in the universe to create whatever he likes and his first experiment was a complete failure. Kudos G.
Jrhexum 1 month ago
@Jrhexum Human beings were the ones who messed up, not God. Humans had free will to obey or not to obey, they chose not to obey. Thats not God's fault; He remains perfect.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 If god was all knowing wouldn't his creation be perfection as well? A perfect omnipotent being would be unable of creating any less than perfect as he is perfection. Therefore if his long time master plan was predetermined we would have no free will, as as our actions were "set in stone" (catch that jibe?) so to speak. If everything was going to balance out to perfection in the end then all those people predetermined to go to "hell" were screwed from day. BS argument if you ask me.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Due to the character restriction I'll reiterate. The interventionist Abrahamic god doesn't hold much weight with its moral and "logical" examples in the "holy" texts. I'm an avowed atheist, and I wont argue against the Spinozian god, as that has hasn't been disproved, although evidence of physics is weighted against it. How could we be made in an almighty's image if it is beyond comprehension. The Abrahamic god is a fallacy, although a Spinozian god is unlikely.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr True, God is Omniscient, but he can choose whether to look to the future or not. For example, he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. He then stopped him and said it was a test of faith. If God already knew what was going to happen, why did he issue the test? Would it not have been a dishonest test if he already knew the outcome? He chooses the appropriate times to look to the future, such as prophecising, for example. .....
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Then he let Jeptha Kill his daughter in the same scenario. Thanks God! :DD
chillwill1993 1 month ago
@chillwill1993 Huh? Jephthah never killed his daughter.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Bullshit//
chillwill1993 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 He can choose to look into the future? No if he created the entirety of the universe and WAS omnipotent he would already know the outcome. God would not "play dice" so to speak. The Abrahamic god also wrestled with a mortal man within the testament, ending the bout by injuring his contestant. How could the almighty creator of everything wrestle a mortal? He could already know he would win, thus a hollow test.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr If he is All-powerful, then he has the power to See the future If He Wants To! and when did he wrestle a mortal man?
God is loving. He never does anything without warning first. He gave all those people chances to repent by sending prophets to warn them. They didnt listen, therefore God has the right to Judge people.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 If he created every and was omnipotent he would know the outcome of everything from the moment of creation. Your logical is flawed and weak at best. In Genesis god wrestled with Jacob, and after a struggle ended the bout by injuring Jacob's hip. So God created homosexuals only to tell his followers to punish them by stoning them to death? Mixing wool and linen in your cloths or working on Sunday is punishable by death. Absolute nonsense.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr 1) God can choose if he wants to see into the future or not. He gets to make that choice. If he had no choice over the matter, he wouldn't be ALL-powerfull, would he?
2) Jacob wrestled with an Angel of God.
3) God does not create homosexuals. Because Adam sinned, all men are imperfect sinners. thats NOT Gods doing.
4) God made the rules of the Sabbath. Not nonsense.
5) I do know the history of past religions. Where do you think ......
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@Waredwr ...... they got the idea of God and started making there own pagan Gods? From Actual God! Other religions were branched off and warped from Gods teachings before the Bible was even written.
6) Maybe YOU should study the Bible carefully and learn some history.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 You've got to be kidding me. So pagans got their ideas of their gods from "actual" god, meaning he deceived them. Not this bullshit about "testing" them or flaws in your text. You text is carbon copies of those past, you have no clue of these religions as you ignore them. Saying the Story of Gilgamesh copied Noah ark? You sir are so thick headed its incredible.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr The epic of Gilgamesh was written AFTER the great Flood. You clearly have no clue what im talking about as you are arraiving to conclutions that i didnt even hint at. Its useless to try and conversate with such a stubborn, irrational, ignorant person as yourself.
jonnyneo53 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 Do you realize that if the great flood was as both the epic of Gilgamesh or Noah's ark as the call it was as both text described covered the entire earth at once over this raining period, it would bury Mt. Everest by 22ft, if it was 5 miles deep as the texts say. How would the writers know it was 5 miles deep? anything not on the boat would have DIED.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@jonnyneo53 You ignore the loopholes and short comings clearly seen in these texts and accept it as blind truth. I'm stubborn and irrational? You sir have delusions of grandeur beyond repair. You still have not counter the points surrounding evolution and Genesis 1:12-16. I'm Waiting.
Waredwr 1 month ago
@Waredwr I can easily explain the "Problems" you are presenting rationally and logically, but i wont for 2 reasons.
1) Not enough Characters in the comments.
2) No matter how rational or logical or great an explanation i give you, you will still reject it, cuz you just HAVE to be right all the time. Even if God himself explained it to you, you'd still be stubborn and reject it. So whats the point?
jonnyneo53 1 month ago