This video is so true, Dawkins keeps giving lame excuse after lame excuse if he really was so great, why not prove it.. He has no objections with debating journalists, creationists (John Mackay) etc.... "Actions speak louder than words" and Dawkins actions speak volumes
If Pee-Wee Herman challenges Evander Holyfield to a boxing match and Holyfield declines, is it because Holyfield fear Pee-Wee's colossal fists of fury?
You can call God demanding the Israelite to kill every man woman and child in multiple cities non-genocidal if you want. I'm sure many of the Nazis made similar excuses. I hope you can excuse my falling prey to Godwin's Law, but this is a video featuring Hitler and we are talking about Jews and genocide.
William Lane Craig said, "Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
William Lane Craig said, "The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God."
Richard Dawkin's world-view is pitiless, nihilistic and immoral. Keep wasting your money on his books, though. I'm sure it's going to mean a lot when you face God in the end.
@escapingplatoscave so true, is it just me or do the majority of atheists I come in contact with seem to be very angry? They show an extreme hatred for theists.
@andrewsapirate It's funny you should say that because everytime a religious person comes to me talking about god and I point out all the atrocities and immorality in the bible I'm accused of being angry. I'm merely pointing out what these "christians" should already be aware of. It's in your holy book! Another reason why some atheists may come off as angry is that we've had this stuff crammed down our throats our whole lives and we're accused of being evil for not believing in it.
@escapingplatoscave And which god is it going to be? Mithras, Krishna, Allah, Jesus, Thor, Zeus? Dawkins' worldview is based upon evidence, and seeing as how there is zero evidence for an afterlife or the existence of any invisible men in the sky, the reasonable conclusion would be that this life is all the we have. As for immoral, as I stated earlier, at one time or another child murder, gential mutilation, rape, slavery, murder, genocide, have all been sanctioned by religious people.
@RyuHayabusa06 so what proof and evidence then do you have that athiesm is accurate and correct? Now you state all these immoral things which you are right to say is immoral but my question for you is based on your worldview is morals subjective or objective?
@FamousDave2186 As I've already shown earlier, all morality is subjective. For instance, while I believe child murder is immoral, there are some religious sects, past and present, who believe that there are times where it is the morally correct thing to do. For instance, Islamic honor killings, sacrifices to gods, etc. Same thing with lying, it may be the morally correct thing to do based on the situation, like lying to an abusive husband looking for his wife whom you're helping to protect.
@RyuHayabusa06 ok lets take this one at time, so morals are subjective then, so if that's true then how can you say that something is wrong then? You can't. So all those immoral things you've stated eariler aren't really wrong then if your worldview is right. Let's say for example the nazis won WW2 and brainwashed everyone to believe what they wanted, would it still be wrong for all those things you said? According to your worldview no.
Your next comment, wow shiftting the burden of proof...
The universe is indifferent to what we do to each other. However, as a human being who recoils from physical suffering as well as psychological suffering I can empathize with other human beings and understand that these types of sensations are unwanted. This is the basis for what we deem "wrong", and since I know that I wouldn't like to be brutalized in a WW2 era concentration camp I think I have a basis for deeming what the Nazis did as "wrong". I don't a god to tell me this. Do you?
@FamousDave2186 I'm saying that there is no cosmic morality like religious people believe. All morality is determined by what human beings feel and thus what is considered "right" and "wrong" is subjective. The closest thing we have to a universal code of morality is to not do to others what we don't want done to ourselves. There are certain things that most people agree upon, we don't want to be murdered, raped, and have our possessions stolen, which is why these are found in so many laws.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: if atheism is accurate and correct (and again you haven't provided any proof and evidence for that matter.) Last if all morality is determined by what human beings fell and considered right or wrong than how do you know it won't change instead of saying murder is wrong, they may well say that murder is ok. You claimed that the nazis were wrong well according to your worldview who says? You? What makes you so superior to others? What if someone were to say that killing...
@FamousDave2186 You're asking me to disprove a negative. It's like asking me to prove that Superman doesn't exist. We have no evidence for the existence of Superman(Jesus), Krypton(Heaven), or superpowers(walking on water, rising from the dead). The only thing we have are stories and pictures full of plot inconsistencies and contradictions. We have better explanations for the existence of both characters, namely that they are the creations of human minds.
All the evidence we have uncovered about the origins of the universe and life point to a non-supernatural origin, from the discovery of the water, amino acids and the other building blocks of life being found throughout the universe to our expanding knowledge of the universe. Scientists are growing ever closer to creating primitive life within the lab using basic chemical builiding blocks. Also within each discovery humanity has made over the eons the less god has been needed to explain things.
Add to that the discoveries made regarding ancient texts, cuneiform, idols, etc showing that all the worlds religions are based upon ancient myths, many related to each other through the intermingling of peoples who shared stories. For instance, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are derived from ancient Mesopotamian myths like the Enuma Elish, Atra Hasis, Epic of Gilgamesh, and other stories. Yahwah, the god of the Old Testament, who has nothing to do with Jesus, is from a pantheon of gods. All myths.
@RyuHayabusa06 athiest as well who say the holocust was a good thing and they too would be considered psycopaths. Next no I'm asking you to proof athiesm if you can't then why should I accpet it as fact I think you're being very hypocritical when you reject christian theism but then accpet athiesm even though there is no proof to it. That's madness my friend. I've given you the arguments to look at that's your proof right there if you don't want to look at them well who's being unreasonable?
@FamousDave2186 I've addressed all your points already and I know all of Craig's arguments. They hold no water. If you want to believe in the cosmic Santa Claus who watches over you from far, far away to see if you've been bad or good and give you good presents(heaven) or bad ones(hell) then go ahead. It's your right to. It's absurd and childish, but it's your right.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: his arguments hold no water. Next well you're not stating gilgamesh anymore so lets debunk your other stories, first off where are you getting your dates from that would help to see if they're even accurate or not. Next most of those stories are about Many of the ancient texts, especially the epics and religious texts, are full of sex, gore, competition for power, deification of man, and many other activities inherent in a divine king absolutism.
@FamousDave2186 Geez, read all my posts before you comment. I've already discussed the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah myth. It's already an scholarly consensus that these myths are related and have transformed during the centuries as people add and subtract new ideas. This is why Richard Dawkins doesn't want to debate with Craig and others like him. All the archaeology, geology, astrophysics, biology, textual criticism in the world will not change your faith.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: literature of YHVH followers has perished.
3. 2. To say that the early chapters of Genesis are shadowy myths, containing only germs of historical truth, is becoming increasingly untenable. The old custom of mythologizing the early chapters of Genesis created a fog about it making it impossible to discover its true purpose. Certainly, there may be aetiological (explaining the origin of things) accounts. But they are not fictional.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: They are factual. Much valuable work has been produced by scholars which, when only slightly differently interpreted, can shine a floodlight on God's Word. What is needed are simple rules of interpretation different from those used previously.
3. Documents, or texts, found on clay tablets of the ancient near east reveal an effort by power-hungry men to control as many people and as much property as possible. The myths and epics contained in them are mythical in...
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: that they are deliberately untrue. Historical elements there may be. But these are only pegs on which to hang the fables. They are fabricated religio-politico documents, almost always discovered in the palace-temple of ancient cities (Roux 1964: 87-101). The underlying purpose of these fabrications was to give the commoner the illusion that the king-high priest consorted with the gods and that he was a "son of the god " (op. cit.: 96).
@RyuHayabusa06 conti:Their true intent must be discerned before attempting to relate them to the Old Testament.
Here's 6 points which we'll be answered: The source material for the Bible is NOT the ancient near eastern texts we know today.
2.The Bible is historical fact, not a collection of myths and epics.
3. The myths and epics of the ancient near east are fabricated religio-politico documents with a calculated purpose. They did not "evolve"as bards sang them around campfires.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: 4.The Bible is antithetic to ancient near eastern religions.
5.The purpose of the author of Genesis was to show the rise of the worship of YHVH
6.Finally, the basic issue of both the Bible and the ancient near eastern texts is the question, "Who will control men and the world?"
According to Genesis 5: 1, the texts utilized to compose Genesis preceded Moses. The Hebrew word "sefer," or "book," is a written record, along with the rest of the "toledots" or "generations."
@FamousDave2186 Nonsense. The Canaanite gods are mentioned throughout Genesis, including El the father god, who is merged with Yahweh throughout the early OT. The early Israelites were polytheists until the reign of King Josiah. I suggest doing some real research into the Canaanite origins of the Israelite god as well as the Near East myths that Genesis is based upon. Read it yourself instead of copy and pasting from a website.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (how about wait till I'm finish before commenting) a different god in each city), he owned everything, along with the priesthood. Thus he could take anything he wished from the people.
Just as Ezra and Nehemiah read aloud and explained the Torah to a huge crowd (Neh 8:1 - 9:3), likewise the pagans did the same with their literature. Documents contrived by scribes and priests were intended to be read aloud to all the people at various festivals...
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (op. cit.: 96, 100-01, 191-92). After the religious brainwashing, they may have given anything the king wished. When men have forsaken Absolute Truth (or never have known Him), all that is left is fantasy -- a dream world. Rousas Rushdonny makes the point,
The myth reveals a hatred of history . . . The purpose man then sets for himself in his myths is to end history, to make man the absolute governor by decreeing an end to the movement that is history. Where his myths...
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: acknowledge man's lot in history, man ascribes his sorry role, not to his depravity, but to the jealousy of the gods. The goal of the myth, progressively more clearly enunciated in time, has become the destruction of history and the enthronement of man as the new governor of the universe (1967: 1).
Thus, one should see the myths and epics for what they are -- a deliberate attempt by ambitious and evil men (under the leadership of evil spiritual influences) to subjugate...
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: Since the worshippers of YHVH existed independently of other religions, they must have had their own documents to follow (for instance, Genesis 26:5 speaks of four kinds of written records). The fact that we cannot find copies is not unusual. We do not even have very ancient Old Testament manuscripts. Furthermore, since no temples were built until the time of the kingdom (temples are the place where religious literature is found), this is another reason the earliest...
@FamousDave2186 You are so undereducated when it comes to discussing the origin of the worship of Yahweh and the ancient Canaanite pantheon that included El, Dagon, Asherah, and other gods mentioned in the OT. The worshippers of Yahweh did not exist indepently of other religions. They intermingled with other groups and all the descriptions of his powers are taken straight from the old El stories. If you don't know this stuff then all I say is read something by Mark S. Smith or some other expert.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (WAIT TIL I"M FINISHED) the populace and extort from them, along with the supporting priest-nobles, all that is needed for the most voluptuous lifestyle. When man becomes completely degenerate, he will develop a system to support his degeneracy. Occasionally a ruler might be more lenient with the people. But, none ever relinquishes divine kingship. These religio-politico texts can only be recognized for what they are by comparing them with the Bible. Not to do so,
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: makes them basically incomprehensible in their "sitz im leben" (historical context).
4. The Bible is an absolutely unique book. It actually establishes a positive system of YHVH worship, not simply an antithesis. Other religious literature can be compared and similarities found. But, the Bible can only be understood apart from them, yet reflecting them in its opposition. If we grant that the Bible is an antithesis to ancient near eastern religion,
@FamousDave2186 If you're just going to copy and paste a bunch of stuff from some website then I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with you. I've heard all the verbal gymnastics from Christian apologists about how all the other myths were different in this and that way and therefore the Christian myth is true and the others are false ignoring the fact that the other texts predate them. You have a bias for your particular text and nothing is going to shake your faith.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: of YHVH built a temple. This explains why no trace of YHVH worship has ever been uncovered by archaeologists during this early period. No temples were needed, because the followers of YHVH were not grasping for power and control over people.
6. One must not impose his preconceptions on Scripture. We should seek to determine what it actually says. It claims to be the Word of the Living God. If this is so, then it is not a disjointed set of humanly fabricated volumes.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: It should have a continuous theme running all through it, from Genesis to Revelation. The theme is something like: "YHVH is the Creator, King and Redeemer of all creation." The uniting factor of both testaments is the basic question, "Who will control men and the world now and forever?" There is a continual contest throughout Scripture between Satan and God to control men. On the world scene, the contest is often seen between the emissaries of Satan and those of YHVH God.
@RyuHayabusa06 That address your points and to reponse to your little cheap shot right there I don't have time to explain everything in my own words and your liitle ad homenim does nothing to disprove the argument, so now you have some options either continue to argue the points made, accpet it for being the truth, or go away. I hope you accpet it as truth but if you don't well that's your decision, Look at the arguments with an open mind and an open heart and you'll see this is the truth.
@FamousDave2186 But those that seek truth only find the pages and pages of bias'd testimonials from both sides. If one wants to really find the truth of the big answer, whether or not a God truly does exist, he or she must find it from whiting. No science book, or testimonial will make the difference. It shouldn't, anyways. Man is generally corrupt.
@TrackStar828 I'm sorry but what is "whiting?" The only thing I can find of that is a city in Indiana, and different kinds of fish. Next look at the arguments for theism. There's the cosmological arguments, teloglocial arguments, the moral arguments, the octological arguments, and the historal accounts of Jesus. By reading those arguments you can see the proof to it whether you accept it or not is up to you. My last oppenent as you can clearly see didn't accept that but that's his choice.What...
@FamousDave2186 sorry I meant "within". Not sure where the "g" came from. I am an agnostic and I am trying to find answers, but it is very tough in today's society.
@TrackStar828 ok, meant no disrespect by the way, anyways, I agree it is tough, no one said it would be easy. I've looked at both sides of the arguments, I've come to the conclussion that Christianity is right. I believe what you are telling me that you truthfully are searching for answers, and I think you'll find them on his website, Look at the arguments with an open mind and an open heart you I challage you to search for God and if you sincerely do so you will find Him.
@FamousDave2186 It's impossible to prove a negative. We will remain atheists until proof of the existence of your corrupt, amoral, violent, psychotic and nasty Gob is provided. Even then we are unlikely to bow down and kiss his arse because of his hideous nature.
@CalumGilhooly hmm that's funny I can prove why there's no such thing as a circle square that's a negative, I can prove there's no such thing as a married bachlor that's a negative. So I guess you can prove a negative.
My that last part is a bold statement, I would like to know is do you think morals are objective or subjective?
@FamousDave2186 Another Gob bothering cretin come to try his luck. Those are not negatives you chimp, they are contradictions. Going by the Bibble, morals are certainly not handed down by a Gob, they came from traditions and mores that humans developed. The Gob of the Bibble is not a moral creature, he is a monster and should be avoided. I have asked theists before, how do you tell Satan and your Gob apart? They are very alike I think. I wouldn't want either of them near me or my children.
smoking and drinking extremely decent atheists die of cancer (proving both cause and effect, and proof that moral right does not overcome health wrongs ). God worshiping, child fucking roman catholic priests, and bay penis sucking jewish rabbis dont.
@StFual How about first we lay off the insults and actually talk like a with actuall words. So you think morals are subjective then. Ok let me ask you what is your foundation than for morals than. If morals are just man man what is to say they can't change into something that we today think is wrong? Here I'll give an example, lets say the new athiests get there way and religion is banned, well would it then be morally wrong that we are banning religion when in this country (America) we have...
@StFual conti: freedom of religion. I guess according to you no, but lets reverse it and say that being an athiests should be banned, would you then think that's wrong? I would and I disagree with your worldview.
Now your next comment I don't what your getting at from here. We die because of man's first sin when we were told not to eat from the forbidden fruit, it is not morally wrong that we should die. I know Christopher Hitchens was fighting cancer, his bad habits caught up to him and I did,
@StFual conti: pray for him to get better but if it was his time to go than I at least hope that he came to know Jesus as his Lord and Savior due to his brother Peter teaching him.
Oh one more thing if you want another example I can prove to you that 2+2 doesn't equeal 5. That's a negative. So negatives can be proven, just give me argument, just because you deny evidence (cosmologicals, telological, moral, octological arguments, and historal accounts of Jesus) doesn't prove athiesm is right...
@FamousDave2186 Atheism is not something that one must prove. Atheism is the default position, that's were you come in and try to explain(but can't prove) one's bullshit to the one that isn't aware of your bullshit.
@wxtrim "Atheism is not something that one must prove. Atheism is the default position," Why? That sounds like special pleading. Sorry but I'll accpet an idea that does have proof and evidence (cosmological arguments, telogical argument from fine-tuning, moral argument, ontological argument, and the historal accounts of Jesus) other than blind faith anyday.
@FamousDave2186 What special pleading you ignorant troll? I just explained to you what atheism is, it's the lack of faith in religion and all it's gods! The burden of proof is on you, not me, you bring me proof and verifiable evidence! When a baby is born it has no religion therefore an "atheist". And if the parents are christian or whatever, THEY start telling him, indoctrinating him with their religion. Every man/woman says that their religion is the right one!
@wxtrim first off I was quoting you and showing how you're wrong. Second its special pleading because you fell like you don't have to provide proof and evidence for your beliefs yet I have to, that's special pleading. Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God. So if you can prove that those references are wrong then you got a case. Good luck with that one.
@wxtrim conti: A small child doesn't understand the concept of it. A child doesn't see any reason as to why the parent would lie to them so at first they teach them about Jesus if the child later in life asks why they believe in God its up to the parents to explain to the child why and its really simple if the child is older you can talk about the arguments I've stated and talk about how Jesus really did exist and many historians back this up. Its real simple to show the child why its reasonable
@wxtrim cont: to believe in Christianity. History is your friend do the research yourself and look at those arguments from Dr. William Lane Craig's website at Reasonablefaith .o.r.g. (take out the periods) and look at those arguments. If you search with an OPEN MIND and an OPEN Heart you'll see that Christian Theism is the more plausable belief, and not blind faith.
@FamousDave2186: That's retarded. How is believing fairy tales of walking zombies born of virgins reasonable to believe? Especially since there is no real evidence to support this. How is that not blind faith?
@chinopisces The word you are looking for is stupid not retarded, in fact don't ever say that again or I'll report you for that. Did you even look at what I typed? Of course you didn't. Just stating thats wrong and using a strawman: Jesus wasn't a zombie after He was Resurected, look up the word zombie and then tell me how that applies. Since you have no desire to argue the points I've made earlier it seems you have the blind faith since I've yet to hear any proof and evidence as to why...
@chinopisces conti: atheism is accurate and correct. So please share with me since my beliefs aren't true according to you, What proof and evidence do you have that Atheism is accurate and correct?
@FamousDave2186: No, I'm sticking with retarded. Religion has constantly retarded human advancement throughout the ages. Report me if you wish. I care not.
No one has ever been resurrected in the history of mankind. You claim there has. Prove it.
Logic 101: The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Atheism is not making any claims whatsover. We just deny your claim of a supernatural deity. If you want to continue asserting that your 'god' is real, it is up to you to prove it.
@chinopisces "We just deny your claim of a supernatural deity" Logic 101 as you claim, you just made a claim there saying you deny it. So the burden of proof does apply to you as you can read my past comments you can clearly see my proof and evidence. Not only do you have to disprove my arguments you have to provide proof and evidence so lets here it mr logic. What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct? All I'm seeing right now from you is blind faith.
Christianity is the belief that there is a God so we claim there is a God
atheism is the belief that there is no God so you claim there is no God (which you can't do unless you have infinite knowledge of the universe and everything in it)
that right there is a claim lol
and religion has slowed us down? Christianity tells us life is sacred, while evolution has reduced us to an accident, who slowed us down again?
@steelersforlife777: Clearly you're an idiot. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of a claim for a god. Go to school and learn Logic 101.
Christianity is responsible for the deaths of millions of people, condones slavery, and patricide. Remember what they did to Galileo? Remember the Inquisition? Just a year ago, the new douchebag pope went to Africa and preached against the use of condoms. Life is sacred, my ass.
Religion is primitive. It causes people to behave irrationally.
Atheism is responsible for upwards of 150 million deaths and they happened in more recent times so? Lennon , Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all atheists and between them they also used slave labour, Brainwashed Children and tortured hundreds of thousands. The difference is that when Christians did evil things they was going against their Christian Gospels and what Christ teached however to what or whom was these atheist dictators going against?
@FeignofCordor: Your argument is nonsensical. You speak as if atheism is a religion or even a faction. Nothing could be further from the truth. A baby is born an atheist. Even the early Christians were considered atheists by the Romans.
It is nothing more than a rejection of a concept. You cannot categorize us in a single group and assume we all have the same goal, enemy, or doctrine.
Actually, your 'god' is more evil than the dictators you mentioned. Apparently he killed millions by HIMSELF.
My argument was a mirror reflection of your accusations against Christianity. You said" Christianity is responsible for the deaths of millions of people," and so I pointed out that there are Atheist leaders who together murdered 150 million people so does that make Atheism evil? You categorise all Christians as a single group when they`re not. How was my Christian ancestors guilty of the inquisition when they played no part in it and neither did most Christians?
@FeignofCordor: First of all, you are comparing apples to oranges.
You act as if those dictators preached atheism (don't capitalize it) or did things for the sake of atheism. That is total nonsense. Those dictators were worshiped in a religious fashion. This leads to the fact that religion, or something like religion, causes people to do irrational things.
I CAN categorize Christians by definition. Its many denominations are separate factions, but atheism is merely a label. Nothing more.
@FeignofCordor: Also, I never brought up the subject of evil, except in the context of the Christian concept of a god. I would never worship such an corrupt, jealous, and capricious character. Any deity that promotes slavery, genocide, and genital mutilations is immoral.
@chinopisces Nothing corrupt about the Christian God and I don`t believe genital mutilation is practised by Christians but then why would you know that. nor does my God promote slavery or Genocide but then maybe you listen to ignorant leading atheists such as Dawkins who make these points despite not having a clue about what he`s criticising
@FeignofCordor: You've just presented the fact that haven't read the bible. You've also never heard of circumcision.
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom..." Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy." Deuteronomy 32:42
@chinopisces Exodus 21:2 here is what the Bible comentaries say about this.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
A Hebrew might be sold as a bondman in consequence either of debt Leviticus 25:39 or of the commission of theft Exodus 22:3. But his servitude could not be enforced for more than six full years.
Deuteronomy 32:42 nothing to do with genocide only a threat that God will avenge any enemy of Israel
@FeignofCordor: You can attempt to justify it however you want. Slavery of any kind is wrong and immoral—length of time is irrelevant.
Any entity making threats in bloody fashion is evil. Also, your 'god' is a bigot. He only loves 'his kind'. How moral. You forgot to read the parts of the bible where he killed millions and told his followers to take their virgin girls. You don't suppose they raped them, did you?
@chinopisces I don`t justify it but it was a fact of life back thousands of years ago and again I say God never promoted slavery....That`s just ridiculous. In Britain just over a century ago we had debters prisons and that was a far more harsh affair.
Your ignorance of the Bible and our God is astounding but then you probably get your info from Dawkins who has said that he would not be able to object to infanticide morally
@FeignofCordor: He condones it by establishing its rules in Deuteronomy. Are you just stupid? How is that not condoning it?
I was raised Catholic, was circumcised, baptized, and went to Sunday school. I have read the bible several times, and took several classes on religion in college. You assumption is absolutely false.
It was reading the bible that helped me become an atheist. It was reading other books about other religions and concluding that they are all fictional, just like the bible is.
@chinopisces These are all from Jewish old testament bro. The old testament is hebrew mythology like Iliad is Greek mythology or Shahnameh is Persian mythology. Muhammad however was a real person who carried out all of that. Muslims are the largest group to circumcise boys and girls too. Christians God is really the god of the New Testament (Jesus).
@ignatei: I really don't care. I would never worship a god that had such a malevolent history. There is no actual evidence that any of it ever happened, so distinctions are irrelevant to me.
Your claim that Muslims are the largest group to circumcise boys is false. The numbers are much larger for christian male infants to have their genitals mutilated. It is a sick and twisted tradition, not to mention unnatural. That is yet another danger of religion, that people would do such stupid things.
@chinopisces I agree with you. But I don't think the statistics is correct. ALL Muslim males are circumcised whereas only some Christians are circumcised. For example in the Balkans the only grup who circumcises boys are the Muslim, catholic and orthodox Christians never do it. I won't even bring up the Muslim female circumcision in places such as Indonesia, Egypt, and Arabia. It's one of those crimes that UN doesn't have the balls to do anything about it.
@TrackStar828 conti: I'd challange you to do is look at those arguments on Craig's website Reasonable faith and look at them with an open heart and an open mind. He uses both philosophical, historal and scientific evidence which proves that not only God exists, but also Christianity as the truth.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: this will explain the apparent, but strained, similarities.
Even though they are separate systems of thought, there will be similarities when they oppose over basic issues. Being opposites, they may react against each other. The clash between them may mount to the point where they go beyond polemics, and attempts are made at the destruction of the other's system and adherents. Yeheskel Kauffman said "Against this religion (Canaanite) the Israelites reacted with such vigor
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: that we find only the scantest traces of it in Yahwehism . . . " (Albright 1946: 94). The strange actions, for instance, of the Israelites before the fall of Jericho may well have been a travesty of the pageantry of the Canaanite Keret Epic which had very similar pageantry. But one is a reaction against the other, not a copy of it!
To say that the Bible was derived from those religions and literature, distorts the Bible and does no credit to those religions, either
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (i.e., we misunderstand them, too). Whereas there is sometimes almost a complete syncretism in pagan religions (e.g., the pantheons of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome), it is forbidden among the followers of YHVH.
The Bible is the revelation of God in history. Since the culture was similar to that of the other lands of the ancient near east, there will be similarities for that reason. Similarities will be seen when:
Used in both are pageantry and drama. Documents of both systems were written to be read aloud. So there will be similarities in the manner of presentation also.
There must be a very close correlation between the Bible and extra-biblical texts. If we grant the Bible is completely reliable historically, we should eventually be able to make complete correlations.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: 5. The purpose of Moses in compiling Genesis was to show the beginning of YHVH worship with its ultimate blessing to all mankind. Over against it is also laid out the rise and growth of anti-YHVH systems which cause the continual ruination of mankind.
Yahwehism did not originate with Moses; it began with Adam and Eve and the first reflexes of it in worship were shown by Abel. Note the word "Elohim" in Genesis, chapter one, is used of the Creator. chapters two and three,
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: Elohim is Equated with "YHVH." Double names for God thus do not support the Wellhausen theory, but are traditional in most of the ancient near eastern religions. Then, in chapter four, the designation is simply YHVH alone, with Cain worshipping YHVH wrongly, and Abel doing it rightly. Here too, we have the first example of defiant anti-Yahwehism.
Yahwehism was carried on in the open air by Cain and Abel. Noah built an altar. So did Abraham. No early worshipper
@RyuHayabusa06 and last the epic of gilgamesh is a story of man's unsuccessful attempt at immortality how does that relate to Adam and Eve and Noah's ark? It exists in various recensions from between the 21st to 6th centuries BC. If there's more editing on these stories just like horus how do you know which one is right?
in Conclussion your arguments give me no reason to accpet athiesm. If you think that there is no good or evil well thats a true psycopath right there and I'll never...
@FamousDave2186 Have you even read it? It tells of Utnapishtim being told by the god Ea about a great flood and is told to tear down his house to build a boat to save all the living things he can. It gives dimensions of the boat and numerous other details similar to the Noah's Ark story. This, the Atra Hasis epic and several other flood stories are known to pre-date Genesis. Face it, the bible is chock full of rehashed Sumerian and Babylonian myths. Your god is a myth and you've been hoodwinked.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: become that, you have no proof and evidence for athiesm so I'll never accept that, and your false claims only prove that they copied the bible and since there's different edited versions to these stories how do I know which one is right. I'm sorry my friend but I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
@FamousDave2186 The proof of atheism is that there is ZERO evidence for a god and that virtually everything humans used god to explain now have scientific explanations that have no need for the supernatural. You need to learn about textual criticism and the dating of the biblical texts. The various Mesopotamian texts that the Old Testament plagiarised are far older than the actual writting of the pentateuch.
@RyuHayabusa06 next oh really so you know exactly how nothing somehow became something please prove that for me? What you think is worse than magic, for you guys just have the rabbit just pop out of thin air. Scientists can't create a cell no matter how hard they try. They can make a clone but not an actual cell at least to my knowledge, so please share with me how did the first cell orginate?
@FamousDave2186 I don't believe that something came from nothing. I believe the evidence we have points to the matter/energy that makes up our universe having always existed. I don't believe everything came into existence at the big bang but rather what we call the observable universe is like a star within a galaxy, one of many. No, I can't prove this but no one can yet prove where the universe came from considering the time and distance constraints. But I'm willing to admit that, which you cant
Also, no, we haven't created life in the lab YET. It hasn't even been that long since we discovered bacteria so to expect we'd already create life is a big leap. We have created RNA that self-replicates which is very close. We also created new DNA and placed it into a cell that self-replicates. We're getting there slowly but surely. One thing we do know is that it wasn't all started by some primitive god name Yahweh created by some pathetic tribe of nomads wandering around lost in the desert.
@RyuHayabusa06 first off the hubble teloscope disproves that one, and since you say you can't prove it why should I accept that view and if you think its plausiable that the universe is enteral why isn't it plausiable to believe an enteral Creator than? next that's a big claim right there slowly but surely, the cell is so complex that for chance to happen the odds are astronomical, Next comment that's not proof and evidence just dening something doesn't make you right and I've yet to hear why...
@FamousDave2186 The Hubble telescope doesn disprove what I've because it tells us nothing about the actual big bang event nor about the state of the matter/energy at and before it occured. There are things we don't know yet but postulated an invisible man in the sky answers nothing and only creates more questions. You ask me why the universe can be eternal and not god, which is the exact opposite of what asked in one of my earlier posts. Craig postulates the universe can't be eternal yet got can
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: was ok? If they're subjective you can't say its wrong, because its only humanbeings who decided who's right? The Moral argument states 1: If God doesn't exist then objective moral values don't exist, 2: Evil does exist, 3 so objective moral values do exist (some things which you even agree are evil) 4: therefore God exist. Oh and one last thing funny how you said do not do unto others, kinda easy if you think about that one I think the better one was when Jesus said...
@FamousDave2186 Objective moral values don't exist, as I've already said. Evil doesn't exist, only things or actions that we abhor because of the unwanted consequences felt by human beings. Even things as terrible as the holocaust aren't universally condemned. There are many muslims and some christians who believe it was a wonderful thing. These silly arguments always fail and need to be discarded. I've heard them all, from Lane Craig to Aquinas to Plantinga and they all have holes in them.
@RyuHayabusa06 First off just stating something doesn't make it true no matter how you wish it. You claim there's no evil based on something that isn't all accepted by the world? I'm afriad that's not a good standard to compare since we all do things that are wrong even if you don't accept that. And how can you call the holocaust terrible then if evil doesn't exist. Your statement alone would make you a psychopath (that's not an insult look up the word if you do get offened by that) I know...
@FamousDave2186 Let me ask you this. What would you deem to be evil? The mass slaughter of children? Genocide of entire ethnic groups of people? The destruction of entire cities resulting in the deaths of all men, women and children within? How about the intentional infection of mass groups of people with deadly diseases? Are those things evil? Well, your beloved god did all those things and more in the Old Testament so apparently your god is evil. If you say no then you have no objective morals
@RyuHayabusa06 To say it is wrong for human beings to commit the same atrocities that god supposedly did in the Old Testament and maintain that god's actions were right shows that you do not have an objective standard of morality. When I say there is no Evil I'm saying that there no cosmic evil force i.e. Satan and that there is no objective definition for evil. What I may consider morally repugnant may not be the same as you. Like I would say a god who commits genocide is immoral, you may not.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: do unto others as you would do unto you. The positive is alot harder than the negitive for I can think of things I wouldn't want someone to do then not do it, but to actually do something for someone, that's alot harder. I see no reason to think morals are subjective and again no reason why atheism is accurate and correct, perhaps you should look at thearguments I've presented on Craig's website (reasonable faith). Look at the arguments with an open mind and heart.
@FamousDave2186 The very fact that out of the thousands of gods mankind has created over the eons only a handful are still believed in and all the others are "myths" should make you wonder, what evidence is their for your god of choice that wasn't there for Thor, Zeus, Dagon, Asherah, etc? Really, there is none. Virtually every question that god was used to answer has now been answered by a testable, evidence based scientific answer or has a more plausible hypothesis. God simply isn't needed.
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: I expected that. I'd asked you for proof and evidence for why athiesm is accurate and correct your response doesn't answer my question, If you could give me the arguments for those false gods I'll hear it just like your worldview, The evidence comes from the cosmological arguments, the telological arguments from finetuing, the moral argument, the octological argument, and the historal accounts of Jesus. You can see them at Dr. Craigs webstie Reasonable faith,
@FamousDave2186 Historical accounts of Jesus? Please, every aspect of the Jesus myth is ripped from the Old Testament and pre-existing dying/rising savior myths. The fine-tuning arguments fail for many reasons, one being that we havee no other Earths and universes to observe to see how things may or may not have played out with various kinds of changes. Perhaps things could've been even better for life had something slightly different happened.
The ontological argument is nothing but a ridiculous a priori assumption already thoroughly debunked by Hume and others. All the omni-abilities you all attribute to god creates an incoherency, and to argue a perfect being must exist necessarily is ridiculous. Must the perfect slice of pizza exist necessarily?
@RyuHayabusa06 first off yeah thats called prophecy, last I checked they perdicted what was going to happen and was right, and what other dying/rising savior myths are you refering to horus? You probably don't know but there 3 different versions to that story which one is supposely telling the truth. Next your explaintion just explains why the fine-tuning is accurate because there is no other world that can be observed that has sustain life, this planet alone is the only one, how can that be...
William Lane Craig is a joke, period. The whole liar, lunatic, or lord stuff is bs. How about Legend? All of his arguments are easily discredited. Besides, until the networks have the balls to actually broadcast an actual full-length debate in primetime between an atheist and Christian there isn't much point. The whole idea that such a major topic is relegated to Youtube videos and small auditoriums is ridiculous.
Not to mention the fact that Canaan was occupied by the Egyptian empire (the sole superpower of that part of the world at that time). So this whole story about the Exodus and conquest of Canaan is just ridiculous.
This whole debate about if what the Jews commanded by God did, was right or wrong is a non-starter because Archeology shows us that it didn't happen in the first place.
@BigBobsh2o Another thing that Craig has somehow overlooked is the fact that his position on the murder of the Canaanites destroys the notion of objective morality held by most Christians. If it was ok for the Israelites to murder the Canaanite children but not ok to kill children of any faith, race, or nationality today, then you have a situational standard for the murder of children. Same with homosexuals. God said to kill them in the Old Testament for their behavior. Is it still ok?
They say that without god anything is permissable, but actually the opposite is true. At one time or another child murder, child rape, child gential mutilation, rape, slavery, murder, genocide, subjucation of women in all ways thinkable, etc. have all been encouraged by religion and most still are today in certain places.
Good point. To me Craig's arguments for the existance of God are appealing, but when he tries to defend the Bible he gets tangled up in the same problems that other apologists do.
@BigBobsh2o I've never found his arguments appealing. It's been a while since I've watched some of his debates but I recall him arguing that the cosmos and universe can't be eternal because there would be an infinite number of events in the past and thus we would never arrive at this point in time. Meanwhile he argues for the existence of an eternal being in an eternal place, heaven, who acts within time, having past and present actions and thoughts, therefore invalidating his own argument.
@RyuHayabusa06 You've missed understood his argument. Time has started so Now God acts within time and up to this point has a present and a past - when there was no time God was in a timeless mode of existence hence not doing anything.
@CettoTheCesco Really? God was in a timeless mode? Ridiculous. The very fact that god would have to act for time to start in itself precludes there being time before such an action could take place. Whether it's a different kind of time or whatever nonsense you want to make up to make your pet hypothesis work is of no importance. For god to act, whether he spoke the words "let there be time" or simply did it with a thought indicates there must be time within such an action can take place.
@RyuHayabusa06 No, God does not have to be in time to act in order to start time - that's incoherent. Look, i can show you through a thought experiment- God existing timelessly -> wills creation into existence = thus time starts. Lol you think he takes time for God to create but that's not true God isn't like man that he needs to talk or move a limb to create, He wills it into existence and there it is, as the first creation pops into existence that is when time would have started.
@CettoTheCesco Ridiculous. To will something is an action requiring time to do so. Picture it this way - God before creation>God wills creation into existence>Creation occurs. There would have to be a moment before creation was willed into existence, therefore that moment would have to occur in time, call it "heaven time" or whatever.
@RyuHayabusa06 No, but it would start time - as such when God willed = time began at the event he willed. I'll give you an example that you can relate to. God in his timeless moves his arm - as soon as he moved that arm time began. The will and causation happen simultaneously.
@CettoTheCesco Geez, I don't know how to make any easier to understand. Did god exist before he "willed" time to start? Even stating god existed before time implies time before the execution of his will. The only way out of this is to say god came into existence when time came into existence and we both know that throws a moneywrench into everything you believe.
@RyuHayabusa06 Lol any easier? You are wrong so maybe that is why hahah. Yes God did exist when there was no time umm hello Eternal God ( no beginning nor end). I already showed you how willing something and causing it is simultaneous LOL he doesn't need to extend his arm to get something done which takes time. EVEN if that was the case the moment his arm started moving it would initiate time.
This video is so true, Dawkins keeps giving lame excuse after lame excuse if he really was so great, why not prove it.. He has no objections with debating journalists, creationists (John Mackay) etc.... "Actions speak louder than words" and Dawkins actions speak volumes
Gilbertus1986 1 week ago
lol his inner ape
gouki2005 2 weeks ago
If Pee-Wee Herman challenges Evander Holyfield to a boxing match and Holyfield declines, is it because Holyfield fear Pee-Wee's colossal fists of fury?
caralhoman 4 weeks ago 2
@caralhoman No, it's because he's afraid Pee-Wee might jerk off on him.
TenWhoWereTaken 3 weeks ago
This is hilarious. Oh, and DIE HILTA!
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
So the Nazi's support Craig and Christianity. I wonder if this was intended on your part
holdenmcclure 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"...embrace his inner ape!" Love it! LOLOLOLOL!!!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins
Garbage posted time and time again on youtube! This is the only "Hitler Rant" that I didn't laugh at.
wxtrim 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Possibly the most exquisite recrafting yet. LOL.
kimbo99 2 months ago
You can call God demanding the Israelite to kill every man woman and child in multiple cities non-genocidal if you want. I'm sure many of the Nazis made similar excuses. I hope you can excuse my falling prey to Godwin's Law, but this is a video featuring Hitler and we are talking about Jews and genocide.
FactsBeforeFaith 2 months ago
William Lane Craig said, "Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
FactsBeforeFaith 2 months ago
William Lane Craig said, "The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God."
FactsBeforeFaith 2 months ago
This was amazingly beautifully well made lol very funny :)
lol @ Dawkins saying he supports infanticide as well..we need more humorous vids like this XP
Intellectual4God 2 months ago
@Intellectual4God Hahahaha, Cretin4Gob should be your moniker, you moron.
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
What movie is this taken from?
EquineDreams 3 months ago
@EquineDreams The movie 'Downfall'. A very good movie about Hitler's end, living in the Hitler bunker. Recommended.
PMEWhite 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@EquineDreams
Here's the full version of the movie:
watch?v=EcBiz5m8nWk
mawa89g 2 months ago
Everyone who know´s German, know´s that Hitler is furious because they can not get pizza delivered.
MrMaika77 3 months ago
Greetings from Pakistan!
RayKalmNiam 3 months ago
There`s no god/deity guys. Get an education and base your life on knowledge not on supersticion.
ThreeLions89 3 months ago
"He wet his pants when I mentioned Craigs name. "
Laughing so that get tears in my eyes, here.
CJFCarlsson 3 months ago
8 people did not embraced their inner ape. =/
mtaob90 3 months ago
Original stuff here. troll
nevascurded 3 months ago
I think I love Hitler now...
killerboyfoolz 3 months ago
Richard Dawkin's world-view is pitiless, nihilistic and immoral. Keep wasting your money on his books, though. I'm sure it's going to mean a lot when you face God in the end.
escapingplatoscave 3 months ago 2
@escapingplatoscave so true, is it just me or do the majority of atheists I come in contact with seem to be very angry? They show an extreme hatred for theists.
andrewsapirate 3 months ago
@andrewsapirate It's funny you should say that because everytime a religious person comes to me talking about god and I point out all the atrocities and immorality in the bible I'm accused of being angry. I'm merely pointing out what these "christians" should already be aware of. It's in your holy book! Another reason why some atheists may come off as angry is that we've had this stuff crammed down our throats our whole lives and we're accused of being evil for not believing in it.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@andrewsapirate
I have some interesting theory on angry atheists if you're interested.
ivlfounder 3 months ago
@ivlfounder Ya sure, I'm definitely interested. Especially if you are speaking from an atheistic perspective.
andrewsapirate 3 months ago
@escapingplatoscave And which god is it going to be? Mithras, Krishna, Allah, Jesus, Thor, Zeus? Dawkins' worldview is based upon evidence, and seeing as how there is zero evidence for an afterlife or the existence of any invisible men in the sky, the reasonable conclusion would be that this life is all the we have. As for immoral, as I stated earlier, at one time or another child murder, gential mutilation, rape, slavery, murder, genocide, have all been sanctioned by religious people.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 so what proof and evidence then do you have that athiesm is accurate and correct? Now you state all these immoral things which you are right to say is immoral but my question for you is based on your worldview is morals subjective or objective?
FamousDave2186 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@FamousDave2186 As I've already shown earlier, all morality is subjective. For instance, while I believe child murder is immoral, there are some religious sects, past and present, who believe that there are times where it is the morally correct thing to do. For instance, Islamic honor killings, sacrifices to gods, etc. Same thing with lying, it may be the morally correct thing to do based on the situation, like lying to an abusive husband looking for his wife whom you're helping to protect.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 ok lets take this one at time, so morals are subjective then, so if that's true then how can you say that something is wrong then? You can't. So all those immoral things you've stated eariler aren't really wrong then if your worldview is right. Let's say for example the nazis won WW2 and brainwashed everyone to believe what they wanted, would it still be wrong for all those things you said? According to your worldview no.
Your next comment, wow shiftting the burden of proof...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
Comment removed
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
The universe is indifferent to what we do to each other. However, as a human being who recoils from physical suffering as well as psychological suffering I can empathize with other human beings and understand that these types of sensations are unwanted. This is the basis for what we deem "wrong", and since I know that I wouldn't like to be brutalized in a WW2 era concentration camp I think I have a basis for deeming what the Nazis did as "wrong". I don't a god to tell me this. Do you?
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 I'm saying that there is no cosmic morality like religious people believe. All morality is determined by what human beings feel and thus what is considered "right" and "wrong" is subjective. The closest thing we have to a universal code of morality is to not do to others what we don't want done to ourselves. There are certain things that most people agree upon, we don't want to be murdered, raped, and have our possessions stolen, which is why these are found in so many laws.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: if atheism is accurate and correct (and again you haven't provided any proof and evidence for that matter.) Last if all morality is determined by what human beings fell and considered right or wrong than how do you know it won't change instead of saying murder is wrong, they may well say that murder is ok. You claimed that the nazis were wrong well according to your worldview who says? You? What makes you so superior to others? What if someone were to say that killing...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 You're asking me to disprove a negative. It's like asking me to prove that Superman doesn't exist. We have no evidence for the existence of Superman(Jesus), Krypton(Heaven), or superpowers(walking on water, rising from the dead). The only thing we have are stories and pictures full of plot inconsistencies and contradictions. We have better explanations for the existence of both characters, namely that they are the creations of human minds.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
All the evidence we have uncovered about the origins of the universe and life point to a non-supernatural origin, from the discovery of the water, amino acids and the other building blocks of life being found throughout the universe to our expanding knowledge of the universe. Scientists are growing ever closer to creating primitive life within the lab using basic chemical builiding blocks. Also within each discovery humanity has made over the eons the less god has been needed to explain things.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
Add to that the discoveries made regarding ancient texts, cuneiform, idols, etc showing that all the worlds religions are based upon ancient myths, many related to each other through the intermingling of peoples who shared stories. For instance, Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are derived from ancient Mesopotamian myths like the Enuma Elish, Atra Hasis, Epic of Gilgamesh, and other stories. Yahwah, the god of the Old Testament, who has nothing to do with Jesus, is from a pantheon of gods. All myths.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 athiest as well who say the holocust was a good thing and they too would be considered psycopaths. Next no I'm asking you to proof athiesm if you can't then why should I accpet it as fact I think you're being very hypocritical when you reject christian theism but then accpet athiesm even though there is no proof to it. That's madness my friend. I've given you the arguments to look at that's your proof right there if you don't want to look at them well who's being unreasonable?
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 I've addressed all your points already and I know all of Craig's arguments. They hold no water. If you want to believe in the cosmic Santa Claus who watches over you from far, far away to see if you've been bad or good and give you good presents(heaven) or bad ones(hell) then go ahead. It's your right to. It's absurd and childish, but it's your right.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: his arguments hold no water. Next well you're not stating gilgamesh anymore so lets debunk your other stories, first off where are you getting your dates from that would help to see if they're even accurate or not. Next most of those stories are about Many of the ancient texts, especially the epics and religious texts, are full of sex, gore, competition for power, deification of man, and many other activities inherent in a divine king absolutism.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Geez, read all my posts before you comment. I've already discussed the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noah myth. It's already an scholarly consensus that these myths are related and have transformed during the centuries as people add and subtract new ideas. This is why Richard Dawkins doesn't want to debate with Craig and others like him. All the archaeology, geology, astrophysics, biology, textual criticism in the world will not change your faith.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: literature of YHVH followers has perished.
3. 2. To say that the early chapters of Genesis are shadowy myths, containing only germs of historical truth, is becoming increasingly untenable. The old custom of mythologizing the early chapters of Genesis created a fog about it making it impossible to discover its true purpose. Certainly, there may be aetiological (explaining the origin of things) accounts. But they are not fictional.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: They are factual. Much valuable work has been produced by scholars which, when only slightly differently interpreted, can shine a floodlight on God's Word. What is needed are simple rules of interpretation different from those used previously.
3. Documents, or texts, found on clay tablets of the ancient near east reveal an effort by power-hungry men to control as many people and as much property as possible. The myths and epics contained in them are mythical in...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: that they are deliberately untrue. Historical elements there may be. But these are only pegs on which to hang the fables. They are fabricated religio-politico documents, almost always discovered in the palace-temple of ancient cities (Roux 1964: 87-101). The underlying purpose of these fabrications was to give the commoner the illusion that the king-high priest consorted with the gods and that he was a "son of the god " (op. cit.: 96).
Being the "son of the god"...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti:Their true intent must be discerned before attempting to relate them to the Old Testament.
Here's 6 points which we'll be answered: The source material for the Bible is NOT the ancient near eastern texts we know today.
2.The Bible is historical fact, not a collection of myths and epics.
3. The myths and epics of the ancient near east are fabricated religio-politico documents with a calculated purpose. They did not "evolve"as bards sang them around campfires.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: 4.The Bible is antithetic to ancient near eastern religions.
5.The purpose of the author of Genesis was to show the rise of the worship of YHVH
6.Finally, the basic issue of both the Bible and the ancient near eastern texts is the question, "Who will control men and the world?"
According to Genesis 5: 1, the texts utilized to compose Genesis preceded Moses. The Hebrew word "sefer," or "book," is a written record, along with the rest of the "toledots" or "generations."
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Nonsense. The Canaanite gods are mentioned throughout Genesis, including El the father god, who is merged with Yahweh throughout the early OT. The early Israelites were polytheists until the reign of King Josiah. I suggest doing some real research into the Canaanite origins of the Israelite god as well as the Near East myths that Genesis is based upon. Read it yourself instead of copy and pasting from a website.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (how about wait till I'm finish before commenting) a different god in each city), he owned everything, along with the priesthood. Thus he could take anything he wished from the people.
Just as Ezra and Nehemiah read aloud and explained the Torah to a huge crowd (Neh 8:1 - 9:3), likewise the pagans did the same with their literature. Documents contrived by scribes and priests were intended to be read aloud to all the people at various festivals...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (op. cit.: 96, 100-01, 191-92). After the religious brainwashing, they may have given anything the king wished. When men have forsaken Absolute Truth (or never have known Him), all that is left is fantasy -- a dream world. Rousas Rushdonny makes the point,
The myth reveals a hatred of history . . . The purpose man then sets for himself in his myths is to end history, to make man the absolute governor by decreeing an end to the movement that is history. Where his myths...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: acknowledge man's lot in history, man ascribes his sorry role, not to his depravity, but to the jealousy of the gods. The goal of the myth, progressively more clearly enunciated in time, has become the destruction of history and the enthronement of man as the new governor of the universe (1967: 1).
Thus, one should see the myths and epics for what they are -- a deliberate attempt by ambitious and evil men (under the leadership of evil spiritual influences) to subjugate...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: Since the worshippers of YHVH existed independently of other religions, they must have had their own documents to follow (for instance, Genesis 26:5 speaks of four kinds of written records). The fact that we cannot find copies is not unusual. We do not even have very ancient Old Testament manuscripts. Furthermore, since no temples were built until the time of the kingdom (temples are the place where religious literature is found), this is another reason the earliest...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 You are so undereducated when it comes to discussing the origin of the worship of Yahweh and the ancient Canaanite pantheon that included El, Dagon, Asherah, and other gods mentioned in the OT. The worshippers of Yahweh did not exist indepently of other religions. They intermingled with other groups and all the descriptions of his powers are taken straight from the old El stories. If you don't know this stuff then all I say is read something by Mark S. Smith or some other expert.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (WAIT TIL I"M FINISHED) the populace and extort from them, along with the supporting priest-nobles, all that is needed for the most voluptuous lifestyle. When man becomes completely degenerate, he will develop a system to support his degeneracy. Occasionally a ruler might be more lenient with the people. But, none ever relinquishes divine kingship. These religio-politico texts can only be recognized for what they are by comparing them with the Bible. Not to do so,
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: makes them basically incomprehensible in their "sitz im leben" (historical context).
4. The Bible is an absolutely unique book. It actually establishes a positive system of YHVH worship, not simply an antithesis. Other religious literature can be compared and similarities found. But, the Bible can only be understood apart from them, yet reflecting them in its opposition. If we grant that the Bible is an antithesis to ancient near eastern religion,
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 If you're just going to copy and paste a bunch of stuff from some website then I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with you. I've heard all the verbal gymnastics from Christian apologists about how all the other myths were different in this and that way and therefore the Christian myth is true and the others are false ignoring the fact that the other texts predate them. You have a bias for your particular text and nothing is going to shake your faith.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
When you can't make the argument yourself and rely on copying and pasting someone elses work it shows that you don't have a grasp on the subject.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: of YHVH built a temple. This explains why no trace of YHVH worship has ever been uncovered by archaeologists during this early period. No temples were needed, because the followers of YHVH were not grasping for power and control over people.
6. One must not impose his preconceptions on Scripture. We should seek to determine what it actually says. It claims to be the Word of the Living God. If this is so, then it is not a disjointed set of humanly fabricated volumes.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: It should have a continuous theme running all through it, from Genesis to Revelation. The theme is something like: "YHVH is the Creator, King and Redeemer of all creation." The uniting factor of both testaments is the basic question, "Who will control men and the world now and forever?" There is a continual contest throughout Scripture between Satan and God to control men. On the world scene, the contest is often seen between the emissaries of Satan and those of YHVH God.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 That address your points and to reponse to your little cheap shot right there I don't have time to explain everything in my own words and your liitle ad homenim does nothing to disprove the argument, so now you have some options either continue to argue the points made, accpet it for being the truth, or go away. I hope you accpet it as truth but if you don't well that's your decision, Look at the arguments with an open mind and an open heart and you'll see this is the truth.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 But those that seek truth only find the pages and pages of bias'd testimonials from both sides. If one wants to really find the truth of the big answer, whether or not a God truly does exist, he or she must find it from whiting. No science book, or testimonial will make the difference. It shouldn't, anyways. Man is generally corrupt.
TrackStar828 3 months ago
@TrackStar828 I'm sorry but what is "whiting?" The only thing I can find of that is a city in Indiana, and different kinds of fish. Next look at the arguments for theism. There's the cosmological arguments, teloglocial arguments, the moral arguments, the octological arguments, and the historal accounts of Jesus. By reading those arguments you can see the proof to it whether you accept it or not is up to you. My last oppenent as you can clearly see didn't accept that but that's his choice.What...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 sorry I meant "within". Not sure where the "g" came from. I am an agnostic and I am trying to find answers, but it is very tough in today's society.
TrackStar828 3 months ago
@TrackStar828 ok, meant no disrespect by the way, anyways, I agree it is tough, no one said it would be easy. I've looked at both sides of the arguments, I've come to the conclussion that Christianity is right. I believe what you are telling me that you truthfully are searching for answers, and I think you'll find them on his website, Look at the arguments with an open mind and an open heart you I challage you to search for God and if you sincerely do so you will find Him.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186
You are wrong. There is no god. You are living a life built on lies.
StFual 2 months ago
@StFual so please share with me what proof and evidence do you have that athiesm is accurate and correct?
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 It's impossible to prove a negative. We will remain atheists until proof of the existence of your corrupt, amoral, violent, psychotic and nasty Gob is provided. Even then we are unlikely to bow down and kiss his arse because of his hideous nature.
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@CalumGilhooly hmm that's funny I can prove why there's no such thing as a circle square that's a negative, I can prove there's no such thing as a married bachlor that's a negative. So I guess you can prove a negative.
My that last part is a bold statement, I would like to know is do you think morals are objective or subjective?
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Another Gob bothering cretin come to try his luck. Those are not negatives you chimp, they are contradictions. Going by the Bibble, morals are certainly not handed down by a Gob, they came from traditions and mores that humans developed. The Gob of the Bibble is not a moral creature, he is a monster and should be avoided. I have asked theists before, how do you tell Satan and your Gob apart? They are very alike I think. I wouldn't want either of them near me or my children.
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186
Heres one.
smoking and drinking extremely decent atheists die of cancer (proving both cause and effect, and proof that moral right does not overcome health wrongs ). God worshiping, child fucking roman catholic priests, and bay penis sucking jewish rabbis dont.
We will miss you Christopher Hitchens
StFual 2 months ago
@StFual How about first we lay off the insults and actually talk like a with actuall words. So you think morals are subjective then. Ok let me ask you what is your foundation than for morals than. If morals are just man man what is to say they can't change into something that we today think is wrong? Here I'll give an example, lets say the new athiests get there way and religion is banned, well would it then be morally wrong that we are banning religion when in this country (America) we have...
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@StFual conti: freedom of religion. I guess according to you no, but lets reverse it and say that being an athiests should be banned, would you then think that's wrong? I would and I disagree with your worldview.
Now your next comment I don't what your getting at from here. We die because of man's first sin when we were told not to eat from the forbidden fruit, it is not morally wrong that we should die. I know Christopher Hitchens was fighting cancer, his bad habits caught up to him and I did,
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@StFual conti: pray for him to get better but if it was his time to go than I at least hope that he came to know Jesus as his Lord and Savior due to his brother Peter teaching him.
Oh one more thing if you want another example I can prove to you that 2+2 doesn't equeal 5. That's a negative. So negatives can be proven, just give me argument, just because you deny evidence (cosmologicals, telological, moral, octological arguments, and historal accounts of Jesus) doesn't prove athiesm is right...
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@StFual conti: you also have to put forth your own case. If you can prove athiesm than its unprovable and should be rejected simple as that.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Atheism is not something that one must prove. Atheism is the default position, that's were you come in and try to explain(but can't prove) one's bullshit to the one that isn't aware of your bullshit.
wxtrim 2 months ago
@wxtrim "Atheism is not something that one must prove. Atheism is the default position," Why? That sounds like special pleading. Sorry but I'll accpet an idea that does have proof and evidence (cosmological arguments, telogical argument from fine-tuning, moral argument, ontological argument, and the historal accounts of Jesus) other than blind faith anyday.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Dude what the fuck are you ranting on about! From what you just wrote, I'm confused. Are you an atheist?
wxtrim 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 What special pleading you ignorant troll? I just explained to you what atheism is, it's the lack of faith in religion and all it's gods! The burden of proof is on you, not me, you bring me proof and verifiable evidence! When a baby is born it has no religion therefore an "atheist". And if the parents are christian or whatever, THEY start telling him, indoctrinating him with their religion. Every man/woman says that their religion is the right one!
wxtrim 2 months ago
@wxtrim first off I was quoting you and showing how you're wrong. Second its special pleading because you fell like you don't have to provide proof and evidence for your beliefs yet I have to, that's special pleading. Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God. So if you can prove that those references are wrong then you got a case. Good luck with that one.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@wxtrim conti: A small child doesn't understand the concept of it. A child doesn't see any reason as to why the parent would lie to them so at first they teach them about Jesus if the child later in life asks why they believe in God its up to the parents to explain to the child why and its really simple if the child is older you can talk about the arguments I've stated and talk about how Jesus really did exist and many historians back this up. Its real simple to show the child why its reasonable
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@wxtrim cont: to believe in Christianity. History is your friend do the research yourself and look at those arguments from Dr. William Lane Craig's website at Reasonablefaith .o.r.g. (take out the periods) and look at those arguments. If you search with an OPEN MIND and an OPEN Heart you'll see that Christian Theism is the more plausable belief, and not blind faith.
FamousDave2186 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Oh so you're the a W.L.Craig type of dude! I'll be on my way no need talking to you kid!
wxtrim 2 months ago
@FamousDave2186: That's retarded. How is believing fairy tales of walking zombies born of virgins reasonable to believe? Especially since there is no real evidence to support this. How is that not blind faith?
chinopisces 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@chinopisces The word you are looking for is stupid not retarded, in fact don't ever say that again or I'll report you for that. Did you even look at what I typed? Of course you didn't. Just stating thats wrong and using a strawman: Jesus wasn't a zombie after He was Resurected, look up the word zombie and then tell me how that applies. Since you have no desire to argue the points I've made earlier it seems you have the blind faith since I've yet to hear any proof and evidence as to why...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@chinopisces conti: atheism is accurate and correct. So please share with me since my beliefs aren't true according to you, What proof and evidence do you have that Atheism is accurate and correct?
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186: No, I'm sticking with retarded. Religion has constantly retarded human advancement throughout the ages. Report me if you wish. I care not.
No one has ever been resurrected in the history of mankind. You claim there has. Prove it.
Logic 101: The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Atheism is not making any claims whatsover. We just deny your claim of a supernatural deity. If you want to continue asserting that your 'god' is real, it is up to you to prove it.
chinopisces 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chinopisces "We just deny your claim of a supernatural deity" Logic 101 as you claim, you just made a claim there saying you deny it. So the burden of proof does apply to you as you can read my past comments you can clearly see my proof and evidence. Not only do you have to disprove my arguments you have to provide proof and evidence so lets here it mr logic. What proof and evidence do you have that atheism is accurate and correct? All I'm seeing right now from you is blind faith.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@chinopisces
atheism doesn't make claims??? LOL
dude, are you that dense?
Christianity is the belief that there is a God so we claim there is a God
atheism is the belief that there is no God so you claim there is no God (which you can't do unless you have infinite knowledge of the universe and everything in it)
that right there is a claim lol
and religion has slowed us down? Christianity tells us life is sacred, while evolution has reduced us to an accident, who slowed us down again?
steelersforlife777 1 month ago in playlist More videos from exposedatheists
@steelersforlife777: Clearly you're an idiot. Atheism is nothing more than a rejection of a claim for a god. Go to school and learn Logic 101.
Christianity is responsible for the deaths of millions of people, condones slavery, and patricide. Remember what they did to Galileo? Remember the Inquisition? Just a year ago, the new douchebag pope went to Africa and preached against the use of condoms. Life is sacred, my ass.
Religion is primitive. It causes people to behave irrationally.
chinopisces 1 month ago
@chinopisces
Atheism is responsible for upwards of 150 million deaths and they happened in more recent times so? Lennon , Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all atheists and between them they also used slave labour, Brainwashed Children and tortured hundreds of thousands. The difference is that when Christians did evil things they was going against their Christian Gospels and what Christ teached however to what or whom was these atheist dictators going against?
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor: Your argument is nonsensical. You speak as if atheism is a religion or even a faction. Nothing could be further from the truth. A baby is born an atheist. Even the early Christians were considered atheists by the Romans.
It is nothing more than a rejection of a concept. You cannot categorize us in a single group and assume we all have the same goal, enemy, or doctrine.
Actually, your 'god' is more evil than the dictators you mentioned. Apparently he killed millions by HIMSELF.
chinopisces 1 month ago
@chinopisces
My argument was a mirror reflection of your accusations against Christianity. You said" Christianity is responsible for the deaths of millions of people," and so I pointed out that there are Atheist leaders who together murdered 150 million people so does that make Atheism evil? You categorise all Christians as a single group when they`re not. How was my Christian ancestors guilty of the inquisition when they played no part in it and neither did most Christians?
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor: First of all, you are comparing apples to oranges.
You act as if those dictators preached atheism (don't capitalize it) or did things for the sake of atheism. That is total nonsense. Those dictators were worshiped in a religious fashion. This leads to the fact that religion, or something like religion, causes people to do irrational things.
I CAN categorize Christians by definition. Its many denominations are separate factions, but atheism is merely a label. Nothing more.
chinopisces 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor: Also, I never brought up the subject of evil, except in the context of the Christian concept of a god. I would never worship such an corrupt, jealous, and capricious character. Any deity that promotes slavery, genocide, and genital mutilations is immoral.
chinopisces 1 month ago
@chinopisces Nothing corrupt about the Christian God and I don`t believe genital mutilation is practised by Christians but then why would you know that. nor does my God promote slavery or Genocide but then maybe you listen to ignorant leading atheists such as Dawkins who make these points despite not having a clue about what he`s criticising
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor: You've just presented the fact that haven't read the bible. You've also never heard of circumcision.
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom..." Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy." Deuteronomy 32:42
That's your god.
chinopisces 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chinopisces Exodus 21:2 here is what the Bible comentaries say about this.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
A Hebrew might be sold as a bondman in consequence either of debt Leviticus 25:39 or of the commission of theft Exodus 22:3. But his servitude could not be enforced for more than six full years.
Deuteronomy 32:42 nothing to do with genocide only a threat that God will avenge any enemy of Israel
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor: You can attempt to justify it however you want. Slavery of any kind is wrong and immoral—length of time is irrelevant.
Any entity making threats in bloody fashion is evil. Also, your 'god' is a bigot. He only loves 'his kind'. How moral. You forgot to read the parts of the bible where he killed millions and told his followers to take their virgin girls. You don't suppose they raped them, did you?
Your 'god' is an ass. Luckily, he isn't real.
chinopisces 1 month ago
@chinopisces I don`t justify it but it was a fact of life back thousands of years ago and again I say God never promoted slavery....That`s just ridiculous. In Britain just over a century ago we had debters prisons and that was a far more harsh affair.
Your ignorance of the Bible and our God is astounding but then you probably get your info from Dawkins who has said that he would not be able to object to infanticide morally
FeignofCordor 1 month ago
@FeignofCordor: He condones it by establishing its rules in Deuteronomy. Are you just stupid? How is that not condoning it?
I was raised Catholic, was circumcised, baptized, and went to Sunday school. I have read the bible several times, and took several classes on religion in college. You assumption is absolutely false.
It was reading the bible that helped me become an atheist. It was reading other books about other religions and concluding that they are all fictional, just like the bible is.
chinopisces 1 month ago
@chinopisces These are all from Jewish old testament bro. The old testament is hebrew mythology like Iliad is Greek mythology or Shahnameh is Persian mythology. Muhammad however was a real person who carried out all of that. Muslims are the largest group to circumcise boys and girls too. Christians God is really the god of the New Testament (Jesus).
ignatei 2 weeks ago
@ignatei: I really don't care. I would never worship a god that had such a malevolent history. There is no actual evidence that any of it ever happened, so distinctions are irrelevant to me.
Your claim that Muslims are the largest group to circumcise boys is false. The numbers are much larger for christian male infants to have their genitals mutilated. It is a sick and twisted tradition, not to mention unnatural. That is yet another danger of religion, that people would do such stupid things.
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@chinopisces I agree with you. But I don't think the statistics is correct. ALL Muslim males are circumcised whereas only some Christians are circumcised. For example in the Balkans the only grup who circumcises boys are the Muslim, catholic and orthodox Christians never do it. I won't even bring up the Muslim female circumcision in places such as Indonesia, Egypt, and Arabia. It's one of those crimes that UN doesn't have the balls to do anything about it.
ignatei 2 weeks ago
@ignatei: Just looked it up. I wasn't aware that Christians are finally reducing the practice within their ranks.
chinopisces 2 weeks ago
@TrackStar828 conti: I'd challange you to do is look at those arguments on Craig's website Reasonable faith and look at them with an open heart and an open mind. He uses both philosophical, historal and scientific evidence which proves that not only God exists, but also Christianity as the truth.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 Every argument is a copy paste at this point, from both sides.
TheScreamoVersion 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: this will explain the apparent, but strained, similarities.
Even though they are separate systems of thought, there will be similarities when they oppose over basic issues. Being opposites, they may react against each other. The clash between them may mount to the point where they go beyond polemics, and attempts are made at the destruction of the other's system and adherents. Yeheskel Kauffman said "Against this religion (Canaanite) the Israelites reacted with such vigor
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: that we find only the scantest traces of it in Yahwehism . . . " (Albright 1946: 94). The strange actions, for instance, of the Israelites before the fall of Jericho may well have been a travesty of the pageantry of the Canaanite Keret Epic which had very similar pageantry. But one is a reaction against the other, not a copy of it!
To say that the Bible was derived from those religions and literature, distorts the Bible and does no credit to those religions, either
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: (i.e., we misunderstand them, too). Whereas there is sometimes almost a complete syncretism in pagan religions (e.g., the pantheons of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome), it is forbidden among the followers of YHVH.
The Bible is the revelation of God in history. Since the culture was similar to that of the other lands of the ancient near east, there will be similarities for that reason. Similarities will be seen when:
A. One mocks or derides the other
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti:B One counterfeits the true
C.There are common cultural traits
Used in both are pageantry and drama. Documents of both systems were written to be read aloud. So there will be similarities in the manner of presentation also.
There must be a very close correlation between the Bible and extra-biblical texts. If we grant the Bible is completely reliable historically, we should eventually be able to make complete correlations.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: 5. The purpose of Moses in compiling Genesis was to show the beginning of YHVH worship with its ultimate blessing to all mankind. Over against it is also laid out the rise and growth of anti-YHVH systems which cause the continual ruination of mankind.
Yahwehism did not originate with Moses; it began with Adam and Eve and the first reflexes of it in worship were shown by Abel. Note the word "Elohim" in Genesis, chapter one, is used of the Creator. chapters two and three,
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: Elohim is Equated with "YHVH." Double names for God thus do not support the Wellhausen theory, but are traditional in most of the ancient near eastern religions. Then, in chapter four, the designation is simply YHVH alone, with Cain worshipping YHVH wrongly, and Abel doing it rightly. Here too, we have the first example of defiant anti-Yahwehism.
Yahwehism was carried on in the open air by Cain and Abel. Noah built an altar. So did Abraham. No early worshipper
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 and last the epic of gilgamesh is a story of man's unsuccessful attempt at immortality how does that relate to Adam and Eve and Noah's ark? It exists in various recensions from between the 21st to 6th centuries BC. If there's more editing on these stories just like horus how do you know which one is right?
in Conclussion your arguments give me no reason to accpet athiesm. If you think that there is no good or evil well thats a true psycopath right there and I'll never...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Have you even read it? It tells of Utnapishtim being told by the god Ea about a great flood and is told to tear down his house to build a boat to save all the living things he can. It gives dimensions of the boat and numerous other details similar to the Noah's Ark story. This, the Atra Hasis epic and several other flood stories are known to pre-date Genesis. Face it, the bible is chock full of rehashed Sumerian and Babylonian myths. Your god is a myth and you've been hoodwinked.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: become that, you have no proof and evidence for athiesm so I'll never accept that, and your false claims only prove that they copied the bible and since there's different edited versions to these stories how do I know which one is right. I'm sorry my friend but I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 The proof of atheism is that there is ZERO evidence for a god and that virtually everything humans used god to explain now have scientific explanations that have no need for the supernatural. You need to learn about textual criticism and the dating of the biblical texts. The various Mesopotamian texts that the Old Testament plagiarised are far older than the actual writting of the pentateuch.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 next oh really so you know exactly how nothing somehow became something please prove that for me? What you think is worse than magic, for you guys just have the rabbit just pop out of thin air. Scientists can't create a cell no matter how hard they try. They can make a clone but not an actual cell at least to my knowledge, so please share with me how did the first cell orginate?
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 I don't believe that something came from nothing. I believe the evidence we have points to the matter/energy that makes up our universe having always existed. I don't believe everything came into existence at the big bang but rather what we call the observable universe is like a star within a galaxy, one of many. No, I can't prove this but no one can yet prove where the universe came from considering the time and distance constraints. But I'm willing to admit that, which you cant
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
Also, no, we haven't created life in the lab YET. It hasn't even been that long since we discovered bacteria so to expect we'd already create life is a big leap. We have created RNA that self-replicates which is very close. We also created new DNA and placed it into a cell that self-replicates. We're getting there slowly but surely. One thing we do know is that it wasn't all started by some primitive god name Yahweh created by some pathetic tribe of nomads wandering around lost in the desert.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 first off the hubble teloscope disproves that one, and since you say you can't prove it why should I accept that view and if you think its plausiable that the universe is enteral why isn't it plausiable to believe an enteral Creator than? next that's a big claim right there slowly but surely, the cell is so complex that for chance to happen the odds are astronomical, Next comment that's not proof and evidence just dening something doesn't make you right and I've yet to hear why...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 The Hubble telescope doesn disprove what I've because it tells us nothing about the actual big bang event nor about the state of the matter/energy at and before it occured. There are things we don't know yet but postulated an invisible man in the sky answers nothing and only creates more questions. You ask me why the universe can be eternal and not god, which is the exact opposite of what asked in one of my earlier posts. Craig postulates the universe can't be eternal yet got can
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: was ok? If they're subjective you can't say its wrong, because its only humanbeings who decided who's right? The Moral argument states 1: If God doesn't exist then objective moral values don't exist, 2: Evil does exist, 3 so objective moral values do exist (some things which you even agree are evil) 4: therefore God exist. Oh and one last thing funny how you said do not do unto others, kinda easy if you think about that one I think the better one was when Jesus said...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Objective moral values don't exist, as I've already said. Evil doesn't exist, only things or actions that we abhor because of the unwanted consequences felt by human beings. Even things as terrible as the holocaust aren't universally condemned. There are many muslims and some christians who believe it was a wonderful thing. These silly arguments always fail and need to be discarded. I've heard them all, from Lane Craig to Aquinas to Plantinga and they all have holes in them.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 First off just stating something doesn't make it true no matter how you wish it. You claim there's no evil based on something that isn't all accepted by the world? I'm afriad that's not a good standard to compare since we all do things that are wrong even if you don't accept that. And how can you call the holocaust terrible then if evil doesn't exist. Your statement alone would make you a psychopath (that's not an insult look up the word if you do get offened by that) I know...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Let me ask you this. What would you deem to be evil? The mass slaughter of children? Genocide of entire ethnic groups of people? The destruction of entire cities resulting in the deaths of all men, women and children within? How about the intentional infection of mass groups of people with deadly diseases? Are those things evil? Well, your beloved god did all those things and more in the Old Testament so apparently your god is evil. If you say no then you have no objective morals
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 To say it is wrong for human beings to commit the same atrocities that god supposedly did in the Old Testament and maintain that god's actions were right shows that you do not have an objective standard of morality. When I say there is no Evil I'm saying that there no cosmic evil force i.e. Satan and that there is no objective definition for evil. What I may consider morally repugnant may not be the same as you. Like I would say a god who commits genocide is immoral, you may not.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Confucious and others extolled the "golden rule" long before the jesus story came along.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: do unto others as you would do unto you. The positive is alot harder than the negitive for I can think of things I wouldn't want someone to do then not do it, but to actually do something for someone, that's alot harder. I see no reason to think morals are subjective and again no reason why atheism is accurate and correct, perhaps you should look at thearguments I've presented on Craig's website (reasonable faith). Look at the arguments with an open mind and heart.
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 The very fact that out of the thousands of gods mankind has created over the eons only a handful are still believed in and all the others are "myths" should make you wonder, what evidence is their for your god of choice that wasn't there for Thor, Zeus, Dagon, Asherah, etc? Really, there is none. Virtually every question that god was used to answer has now been answered by a testable, evidence based scientific answer or has a more plausible hypothesis. God simply isn't needed.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 conti: I expected that. I'd asked you for proof and evidence for why athiesm is accurate and correct your response doesn't answer my question, If you could give me the arguments for those false gods I'll hear it just like your worldview, The evidence comes from the cosmological arguments, the telological arguments from finetuing, the moral argument, the octological argument, and the historal accounts of Jesus. You can see them at Dr. Craigs webstie Reasonable faith,
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
@FamousDave2186 Historical accounts of Jesus? Please, every aspect of the Jesus myth is ripped from the Old Testament and pre-existing dying/rising savior myths. The fine-tuning arguments fail for many reasons, one being that we havee no other Earths and universes to observe to see how things may or may not have played out with various kinds of changes. Perhaps things could've been even better for life had something slightly different happened.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
The ontological argument is nothing but a ridiculous a priori assumption already thoroughly debunked by Hume and others. All the omni-abilities you all attribute to god creates an incoherency, and to argue a perfect being must exist necessarily is ridiculous. Must the perfect slice of pizza exist necessarily?
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 first off yeah thats called prophecy, last I checked they perdicted what was going to happen and was right, and what other dying/rising savior myths are you refering to horus? You probably don't know but there 3 different versions to that story which one is supposely telling the truth. Next your explaintion just explains why the fine-tuning is accurate because there is no other world that can be observed that has sustain life, this planet alone is the only one, how can that be...
FamousDave2186 3 months ago
William Lane Craig is a joke, period. The whole liar, lunatic, or lord stuff is bs. How about Legend? All of his arguments are easily discredited. Besides, until the networks have the balls to actually broadcast an actual full-length debate in primetime between an atheist and Christian there isn't much point. The whole idea that such a major topic is relegated to Youtube videos and small auditoriums is ridiculous.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06
Not to mention the fact that Canaan was occupied by the Egyptian empire (the sole superpower of that part of the world at that time). So this whole story about the Exodus and conquest of Canaan is just ridiculous.
This whole debate about if what the Jews commanded by God did, was right or wrong is a non-starter because Archeology shows us that it didn't happen in the first place.
BigBobsh2o 3 months ago
@BigBobsh2o Another thing that Craig has somehow overlooked is the fact that his position on the murder of the Canaanites destroys the notion of objective morality held by most Christians. If it was ok for the Israelites to murder the Canaanite children but not ok to kill children of any faith, race, or nationality today, then you have a situational standard for the murder of children. Same with homosexuals. God said to kill them in the Old Testament for their behavior. Is it still ok?
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
They say that without god anything is permissable, but actually the opposite is true. At one time or another child murder, child rape, child gential mutilation, rape, slavery, murder, genocide, subjucation of women in all ways thinkable, etc. have all been encouraged by religion and most still are today in certain places.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06
Good point. To me Craig's arguments for the existance of God are appealing, but when he tries to defend the Bible he gets tangled up in the same problems that other apologists do.
BigBobsh2o 3 months ago
@BigBobsh2o I've never found his arguments appealing. It's been a while since I've watched some of his debates but I recall him arguing that the cosmos and universe can't be eternal because there would be an infinite number of events in the past and thus we would never arrive at this point in time. Meanwhile he argues for the existence of an eternal being in an eternal place, heaven, who acts within time, having past and present actions and thoughts, therefore invalidating his own argument.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 You've missed understood his argument. Time has started so Now God acts within time and up to this point has a present and a past - when there was no time God was in a timeless mode of existence hence not doing anything.
CettoTheCesco 3 months ago
@CettoTheCesco Really? God was in a timeless mode? Ridiculous. The very fact that god would have to act for time to start in itself precludes there being time before such an action could take place. Whether it's a different kind of time or whatever nonsense you want to make up to make your pet hypothesis work is of no importance. For god to act, whether he spoke the words "let there be time" or simply did it with a thought indicates there must be time within such an action can take place.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 No, God does not have to be in time to act in order to start time - that's incoherent. Look, i can show you through a thought experiment- God existing timelessly -> wills creation into existence = thus time starts. Lol you think he takes time for God to create but that's not true God isn't like man that he needs to talk or move a limb to create, He wills it into existence and there it is, as the first creation pops into existence that is when time would have started.
CettoTheCesco 3 months ago
@CettoTheCesco Ridiculous. To will something is an action requiring time to do so. Picture it this way - God before creation>God wills creation into existence>Creation occurs. There would have to be a moment before creation was willed into existence, therefore that moment would have to occur in time, call it "heaven time" or whatever.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 No, but it would start time - as such when God willed = time began at the event he willed. I'll give you an example that you can relate to. God in his timeless moves his arm - as soon as he moved that arm time began. The will and causation happen simultaneously.
CettoTheCesco 3 months ago
@CettoTheCesco Geez, I don't know how to make any easier to understand. Did god exist before he "willed" time to start? Even stating god existed before time implies time before the execution of his will. The only way out of this is to say god came into existence when time came into existence and we both know that throws a moneywrench into everything you believe.
RyuHayabusa06 3 months ago
@RyuHayabusa06 Lol any easier? You are wrong so maybe that is why hahah. Yes God did exist when there was no time umm hello Eternal God ( no beginning nor end). I already showed you how willing something and causing it is simultaneous LOL he doesn't need to extend his arm to get something done which takes time. EVEN if that was the case the moment his arm started moving it would initiate time.
CettoTheCesco 3 months ago