I think the most common christian argument i've heard is pascal's wager, which is extremely weak. After that would be intelligent design, telling me that darwin was wrong, and that evolution is false. All bologna of course.
“Militant atheists seek to discredit religion based on a highly selective reading of history…[&]are quick to attribute many of the most unfortunate aspects of history to religion,yet rarely concede the immense debt that civilization owes to various monotheist religions,which created some of the world's greatest literature,art,&architecture;led the movement to abolish slavery;&fostered the development of science&technology...To regret religion is to regret our civilization&its achievements.”
@prind666 Militant atheists mistakenly assume that a world without religion would be much as it is today, just minus the wars, ignorance, and oppression they attribute to theism...My question to atheists: Could we have gotten this far in history--scientifically, morally, technologically, and culturally--without religion? I believe the obvious answer is no."
Bruce Sheiman “An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It” (pg 93-4)
Of all the 1000s of cultures in history, the Bible, Jewish/Christian scientists & Creation science philosophy built the foundations of modern science (modern scientific method, peer review process, 1st scientific journals, falsification, occam’s razor,etc.) &pioneered most of its branches. Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) lectures on some of this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
Nature & New Scientist highly recommend Dr. Hannam’s work as solidly researched. The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy & they were drawing both principles & specific concepts, including scientific ones, directly from the Bible. Atheism has tried to kidnap science from its parents and & ban them from it, but is mostly a façade on a Christian superstructure.
@prind666 Jews & Protestants won ~86% of the Nobel prizes in science from 1900-1990. Without the Bible & Biblical scientists, you wouldn’t have modern science or at best you would be centuries behind the present. People who ridicule religion as the enemy of science are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Only people who hate science, facts and truth will try to distort history&separate science from the religion that built it.
@prind666 Btw, Dr. Hannam writes, "No one has ever been burnt at the stake for scientific views. In fact, the only important scientist ever to be executed was Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry. He was guillotined during the French revolutionary terror by the avowedly anti-Christian Jacobins."
If I claim that Alexander the Great didn't exist, it would have far more validity than claiming God doesn't exist. We have FAR more people with 1sthand experience with God than Alexander.
@TruthIsLife7 mkay dreams feelings and hallucinations dont count as first hand experience. so the inquesistion (sorry for the spelling im absolutly horrible) dint kill any scientist going against the church? also the catholic church had a policy of house arrest and supression of knowledge that they used on people such as galileo. the church still has many scientific and philisophical documents to this day.
@prind666 Of all the 1000s of cultures in history, the Bible, Jewish/Christian scientists&Creation science philosophy built the foundations of modern science(modern scientific method, peer review process, 1st scientific journals, falsification, occam’s razor,etc.)&pioneered most of its branches.Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) lectures on some of this at the Royal Society(1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
@TruthIsLife7 now i do agree that christianity had a hand in the founding of science it was rather a hypocritical and sometimes repressive way. do you honestly think that plea to authority will get you anywere? especially when the authority is hundreds of years old? im not going to trust issac newton with modern day physics why should i trust anyone in that time period with insight into modern day science?
The Catholic church is a sister to atheism in many ways, because it replaces God's principles with human traditions, something Jesus' forbade in the strongest possible terms (Mark 7:5-9). But, no, they never did kill any scientist for his science. They persecuted Galileo because he challenged Aristotle whom they had accepted. The historians of science nearly all agree that Christianity was a great friend of science. Personal experiences with God, ARE evidence, not hallucinations.
@prind666 You have many misconceptions about Christianity. God never ever made us to fail, nor did he ask thanks for that. Many Christians believe that God's choice to give free will means that while He knows many things, He just knows all that can be known, not all future.
Modern science and history have confirmed the Bible in NUMEROUS ways. No, human rights are NOT subjective. If you know what science is, lack belief fails when ONE evidence is produced. Christianity has billions.
@prind666 Nature&New Scientist highly recommend Dr. Hannam’s work as solidly researched.The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy&they were drawing both principles&specific concepts,including scientific ones, directly from the Bible.Atheism has tried to kidnap science from its parents & ban them from it, but is mostly a façade on a Christian superstructure.
@TruthIsLife7 im sorry but modern science has done nothing but help disprove the bible and im not even going into education because its entirely subjective. human rights once again are subjective as is morality and Dr. Richard Dawkins has several essays and chapters in books on evolutionary morality.atheism no humanism yes but kidnap? no more like attach itself to and ban well thats the scientists option.
@prind666 Jews&Protestants won ~86% of the Nobel prizes in science from 1900-1990. Without the Bible & Biblical scientists,you wouldn’t have modern science or at best you would be centuries behind the present. People who ridicule religion as the enemy of science are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Only people who hate science, justice & rationality will try to distort history and separate science from the religion that built it.
@TruthIsLife7 im honestly not sure if i want to journey down this road of fact checking. anyway CHRISTIANS have contributed to science but christianity has not im pretty sure the dark ages of science werent a positive thing. also astrology came from astronomy so what? chemisty came from alchemy again so what? science has disproven christianity so many times thats why they call them enemies!
From the sounds of it, I'm a science based feeler! The kind of person who looks at the natural beauty all around, the wonderful complexity of the world around us and simply says "I don't need to dimish this. I don't need to say this was made by a beardy man on a cloud and if I behave it's gonna get better. This is enough."
I highly recommend you listen to 'Storm' by Tim Minchin. Its a beat poem about a free thinker vs a, well, hippy. =P
What they say: Who do you think you are? Who are you to question Almighty God? You are only a worthless, pitiful, meek human creation! What right has the clay to question the potter? human intellect is eclipsed by the sheer magnitude of Almighty God's omniscience!
What you say : ...and who do you think you are to question me ..you meek human-shaped clay, not even able to understand what I say.
@pillowlov well to start off with humans arent clay....... and its a horrible comparison because clay isnt sentient or alive. . he made us to fail and then he commands us to thank him for it, that makes him a fucking sadist. also omniscience takes away free will which meens hello we and god DONT HAVE FREE WILL. stop using the language of a police state. who are you to question his authority? you are worthless compared to him. if your god exists he needs to take some art lessons. :D
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
@prind666 oh and they would have a hard time finding any scientists in the pertaining fields that dont believe in evolution and that arent EXTREMLY biased on the subject like those from the creation research site or any other christian research site. i have yet to see a scientist that deosnt believe in evolution that isnt biased on the subject. and yes creation scientists are biased on the subject they assume god did it then try and find evidence to back it up. thatsnothowscienceworks
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
@prind666 oh archeoptrix is a great example. you should debate discoverying religion hes great at debating people like you and in my opinion hes an expert on debunking your arguments.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Debating is important because it lays out all the best arguments for either side so anyone who hadn't really had an inside or constant exposure to the topic at hand. It may not be to the benefit of the people debating, but it IS important. It helps get both messages out so they can be weighed on their merits.
I'm sorry, but I kind of find your comment about being amazed at atheists being persecuted more than atheists to be a bit insensitive.
I'm an atheist, but I am a strong gay rights defender, and I find it completely understandable that Christians dislike atheists more, since they think gays can repent and find God, while atheists don't. In their eyes, atheism is much worse than homosexuality.
@SpazzK Atheism has made yet another person stupid. It's not your fault exactly. Atheism has intentionally lied. But, you didn't think critically about atheisms claims and that is your fault. It was in the dark ages that the scientific method was pioneered and many branches of science started. The church preserved and protected from destruction much knowledge of the ancients.
@whydoyouask123 No. People are taught about the scientific method and historical method in school and ways to test credibility..at least in any school that deserves the name school. Atheism is the view that taught him to reject historical evidence and all witnesses that conflict with the atheist assertions. About the only people who make the claims he does are atheists.
@prind666 Nearly all of atheism's claims in history have been debunked as pseudoscience or refuted in all sorts of ways. See some of the many videos on my channel.
@TruthIsLife7 the only claim an atheist has about god is that he deosnt believe in him. i think your arguments about some other group such as secular humanism or pantheism.
This presentation by Dr. Hannam at the Royal Society (Dr. Hannam has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge and Nature and New Scientist highly recommend his work.) lists quite a bit of evidence for how Christianity built the foundations of modern science:
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcomSLASHwatch?v=I-k24Q01vck (see the notes for a summary of the presentation)
@SpazzK Historians don't even use the term Dark Ages anymore. Why?
"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things.
@SpazzK "...It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there)
Seth: I've not heard of anyone converting a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, but I have known those who wore them down by inviting them into their homes and discussing the Bible with them. Those who have done so have been both of the theistic and atheistic persuasion... and the one who debated the most with them was an older Christian woman who knew her bible rather well... By the end of one of these sessions, they'd be all but begging to leave....
@TheThinkingAtheist Your sincerity is admirable,but badly misplaced.Atheism &theism existed for 1000s of years,but it was Christianity&creationist concepts that laid the foundations for modern science in many ways (pioneering many processes, the modern scientific method &most branches of science. Dr. Hannam just gave a presentation on this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist).
It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there)
@TruthIsLife7 because christians at the time destroyed scientific knowledge and killed scientists! the only way christianity contributed to science is that it slowed it down!
See the notes in the above link for a short summary, but the whole thing deserves to be watched...and he has a much more detailed book which Nature and New Scientist have recommended.
With all due respect for sincere and admirable atheists out there, atheism is almost entirely built on hiding facts (like these), misrepresenting facts, opposing free thought when it has power, rejecting the weight of scientific evidence and using myriads of fallacies...all for no benefit whatsoever and much harm.
All it takes is one seed of doubt to start the process. Probably why the devil is so feared in religious circles. The devil is not just the harbringer of evil, but he questions and stirs doubt. The "devils advocate" if you will...
I don't think atheists debating theists really do anything for anyone. I used to be a Christian up until I was 17 and when I would watch debates before my "deconversion" I would dismiss all atheist arguments. It wasn't until I personally started investigating then I started to see the arguments for what they were.
The Ad Hominem Artist: NOTHING but insults! Paragraphs of insults, pages of insults - just when you think he's run out of ways to insult you , BLAM, new insult! There may or may not be a tiny smidgen of an argument inside the insults somewhere but yeah - INSULTS. Often the debate begins with him chastising you that you aren't even worthy of being debated.
The Professor: Wow, isn't his vocabulary amazing?! I've met a couple 'professors' (named after the Professor from Gilligan's Island) who seek to sound like this fictional character. This is the extremely sophomoric act of writing in five-syllable words inside jargon-heavy text hoping to impress people with their vocabulary because their ideas are too weak to stand on their own! Atheists like Dawkins sound smarter when you understand them. Christians, however, sound dumber.
Mr Cut and Paste: He's not actually reading your argument - he just finds a key phrase or two, puts it into google and then buries you in official apologetics for you to refute. Don't bother to refute them, there's always more to cut and paste and he's not really reading what you're writing anyway. Often if you take the time to refute him. He'll ignore your refutation, move on to a different topic and later make the same argument you refuted before. Also Mr Christian-go-round.
ive incountered another type.the type that jsut dont care about the facts and when you debate them they make up exuses like i used that why cant god heal amputies video and they say that the world dosnt work liek that than i say why not? hes god he can do anything. but they say that sience doesnt allow that but than i say well the star fish could regrow them so god cares about the starfish than his own children? but than he says well why cant god start evolution and blha blha but he just knows.
@TheThinkingAtheist...love listening to your podcasts, you are very entertaining and informative. You have some great rants, would love to see you guest host on The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty, or Jeff Dee....That would be an epic show.
@TheThinkingAtheist... Hey TA, If when you were religious, someone called you stupid or irrational, would that have served to drive you deeper into religion, feeling justified having been offended, OR would it have awakened you and helped you escape?
I'm a little late to this video, but I can attest that debate is useful. I was an evangelical when I started debating atheists; I was belligerent. Never visibly gave in. But the arguments started me reading everything I could find on science, philosophy, and religion. I never 'joined' pages, blogs, etc. Never commented. But I watched the discussions, and soon became an unbeliever. Don't assume you're not making a dent. And don't ever discount the the people listening on the sidelines.
This is good to hear. Having discussions with theists can be fairly depressing when you feel like your arguing against a brick wall. But I'm glad we'r making a difference.
I didn't watch the whole thing but yeah you are wasting time debating with delusional idiots, a debate between 2 intelligent people/teams always accomplishes something, because in the end a compromise is worked out, but a debate between 1 intelligent person/team and 1 deluded person/team (religious people) a compromise is never worked out, because the deluded side will always make up another excuse (with no explanation) as to why god is real
@Anthony13USA i mean its pretty obvious from your videos and videos from other atheist that religion makes the inside of your head dryer than a desert.
Of course you are wasting your time.We don't need you.I believe talking flying electrical sexomaniac jesus donkeys are a plausible scenario.So FUCK OFF AND DIE debunkers and sceptics.Debunk my balls if you can assholes.I'll believe in anything Like.Got any fucking problem with that?
@asasasarap I'm guessing you're just a troll. Otherwise, you can believe whatever you like...until it interferes with my needs...then all bets are off and I'll do what needs doing regardless of your beliefs, or anything else about you. So, since one way or another you're completely irrelevant, believe whatever you like.
A guy I was debating compared God to a judge and asked if it was right to acquit a killer. I turned it around and asked if it was right to sentence every defendant (regardless of the crime) AND their children to death, kill someone else in their place, and forgive all crimes past and future, but only if they beg forgiveness. His reply was basically "of course because he's god." Then he said he had to ask god if he could still talk to me, since he's engaged and I might get the wrong idea.
YES, DEBATES DO WORK!! Watching thousands of hours of scholarly debates online played a major role in breaking through my own nearly impenetrable wall of religious delusion (I was a fundementalist Christian preparing for ministry). I am now free from wickedly divisive fairy tales, and society is now a little bit better. Never give up proclaiming truth and unapologetically exposing deception! Peace!
i was in texas for a while with my family and our freinds invited us into their house for a while then we went and was trapped in a bible meeting shit lol dude it was funny cuz i was athiest and every1 else was cristian and they all started crying for jesus and expected me too cry too lol
There was a part in here where they mention jehova's witness being "out there" but not as far as Scientology etc. In my opinion, they are ALL equally "out there". Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Mormonism... non of them have evidence for their claims and i think the only difference between them is whether or not we as a society (and i suppose individuals) have become desensitized or not.
Getting off of religious debates, I began loving debates based on listening to KGO, a San Fransisco AM radio talk show in the middle of the night in the early 80's. The talk show host's name was Ray Talyafarro (last name may be misspelled). I loved his debates with the callers, because he provoked anger in everyone. His style was to make people mad, even if you agreed with him. He would turn a person's agreement to a disagreement. He was loud, and proud. I hated him, and loved him.
Good question. You're never going to convince the fundamentalists in a debate, but there are plenty of people who may be 'on the fence' or genuinely trying to find an answer. For these people watching or listening to these debates can help them form an answer using the information given in the debate. Hopefully with more people exposed to these debates you get more people making an informed rational decision instead of only having their local indoctrination as sole option.
I love debating! And I believe debating is more effective for those that are watching. When youre debating its hard to take a look from the outside because you're concentrated on what are the points being made. After debating I usually read/watch the entire debate to see where I could have done better. Its a great way to exercise your mind!
I recently replied to a friend's facebook post about God's love, with Luke 14:26 where Jesus says you have to hate all your family and friends and even yourself to be his follower and all she did was just respond with scripture that says god is love, and never actually dealt with what I had posted. She's a feeler.
I tend to think that most of the value of debate is what happens around the debate rather than what happens in it.
When I was a christian it was precisely by deciding to prepare myself to debate with people that lead me to de-convert when I realized that my beliefs had no solid foundation.
You've got a great broadcasting voice! Reminds me somewhat of Bob Dutko on WMUZ radio, Detroit. He hosts a talk show from 1-3 PM ET..... Now there's a good guy for a debate......he's a new earth creationist and full of the usual Christian *proofs*.....& dogmatic as hell.
Took me over 40 years to get 'born again'...er, uh....with the truth of atheism that is. ;)
I became an atheist simply because of the Philosophy of Religion class. Structured debate within the class was crucial to my deconvertion. Most people simply cant be forced to even listen to philosophical arguments for 10 minutes. But being exposed to philosophy, reason and honest discussion during the entire semester was the most mind opening experience of my life.
I heard an argument from a Christian that people in the Army and Police are all sinners because they kill people. Therefore we should get rid of those institutions. So, I asked her: "What's your solution?"
Her response: "People just need to behave better!"
(No, I wasn't talking to a 5 year old. She was 17 )
Well, if the person you're talking to can use some common sense, then "debating" them is good. If they're like Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort, it's educating them, which is the opposite of a debate.
"Decimate" means to reduce by a tenth. It was used as a punishment at random for mutinies or cowards. Romans would draw lots for one tenth of the legion involved to be brutally punished and then executed. Not to harp on you ThinkingAtheist. With love, :3
@jasonbertles Thanks for the input, but that's not quite what I meant. I guess I should have been more specific. What I'd really like to do is just give my brother the little tidbits of information that would help him to start questioning his beliefs. The rest would be his journey, though I'd be there to help him if he asked.
@Elemental135 That makes more sense. And being only 10 and (presumably) expected to be faithful then things can get curly. He's too young to read Dawkins and Hitchens, clearly, however there is an AWESOME series that Dawkins did for children years ago (lookup Christmas Lectures for Children on YouTube). They are a great introduction to science. I'd probably just encourage your brother to learn how beautiful the world is through exploration and self discovery. Best of luck.
Debate should be a tool to challenge, refine, and solidify your own beliefs. It shouldn't be used to feed your ego or force your way of thinking on others.
The language used by the atheists on this channel is just as cocksure as many of the theists they're criticizing. Nobody knows everything and people who think they do know less than most.
The reason people don't listen is because they don't know. They BELIEVE. Belief is all about "knowing" without any proof whatsoever. Belief is about feeling certain no matter what happens, no matter what anyone proves to you. It's futile argumentation by definition.
I think debating is very effective. If you Google the words "former minister atheist author" it's gratifying to see how many names you get. Debating makes people think, and if they're intelligent, do research. More than one former minister has lost his religion while researching for information to use in arguments against atheists ... for reasons that are obvious to any atheist.
I'm an atheist in a catholic family, and hope to convert my little brother, age 10, to atheism. He still believes in Santa Claus, so I may want to wait a bit. Any ideas on how to plant the seed? I only have about 3 1/2 years before I move out, so he needs to be pretty convinced before he enters highschool.
Wait a few years and start sending him the other videos by TheThinkingAtheist. Just send them and say "hey, I thought this was pretty funny" and let him watch it. This way they won't be on the defense. That and comedians who rip on religion. Then link him some Wikipedia articles on philosophy; Russel's teapot, circular reasoning, and use them on other religions. Explain why Zeus, Hinduism etc, isn't real.Then he'll use that same analytic methodology on his own beliefs, alone.
@Elemental135 I think it's hypocritical for us atheists to seek to "convert" the religious (particularly a child) to our way of thinking. Forcing a belief system on another person is kind of what got us into this mess in the first place, you know what I mean? I think it would be wiser to let him know there are people who believe different things out there and point him to places where he can discover more. It should be his journey. My thoughts, anyway.
What's so messed up, people with political ideologies are the same way and when you call them on something or disagree with them, even on just something little, they go ape shit! This happened with me on the shooting in Arizona. People were believing hype that was put out by the media and running with it. Then they started politicizing it. Sad!
Dude,of course they don't listen.The Christian religion has the belied that if you don't have faith then you go to hell.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith.
If you don't belief you can go to hell and your taught this from youth.How do you think there going to act.They have to ignore atheist to not be tortured.
@apex588 I'm not saying it's good,no,It's opposite.I just became an atheist.I think back to only months ago and I remember not studying certain things for two reasons.I thought it was dumb because group dynamics.A few years before,I believed in evolution,it got me out questioning things but God.I begain to talk to people and evolution seemed silly,so I choice to live by "faith".I didn't want hell.So because a group dynamics in churc and faith(hell or touture.).
Also I believe the best way to deconvert them,is reading them unbearable parts of the bible.The part of the bible that condones rape stoning,His enemies to eat there own babies.There are the parts that help,Arguing about noah might help but you start at the hate scriptures then to foolish ones.
I used to love debating, learning and finding out what makes other people tick and believe in (x), (y) and (z).
But now, I only see debates as a test stubbornness or the same old argument being played over and over and over again until you get to a point where you're bashing the guy for not looking it up in the first place.
@l8rthen Hey Einstein. Christianity is my background, so that's where my focus lies. After escaping the dogma that imprisoned me for so long, I hope to help others to do the same.
@l8rthen Which religion do you think has the most effect in the law, tries to subvert science for school children, and has many dedicated tv channels in America? It seems sensible for an American atheist to focus on Christianity.
@SpookyFan , From my view point in the DC Metro area, xtians are no longer the pulling power they used to be.
Separately, there is such a thing as unhealthy when Ur whole life seems to be fixating against a singular issue. Seems to have a lot in common with televangelists, or like one who cannot stop telling all just how bad their ex was. IMO.
@l8rthen zzzzzzzzzz religion is a big issue that affects millions of people and our society in numerous ways. Your false equivalence to xtian televangelism is extremely lame and completely baseless. I can assure you TTA does not pull in the money the tv preachers make. Not even close, not even in the same ballpark, doesn't even have a ballpark.
We all reach that point where we ask ourselves, "what's the point?" I find myself grounded when i think the things i post (videos, comments, debates) are all in public. They are all accessible to the public. Even if i'm not popular, i do have some listeners, and i can try to bring some information or a way of thinking for the layperson to understand what we mean (because i can be slow sometimes, too). Someone on the fence may see my reasoning and begin to break their religious shackles.
I'm like number 666 its the sign of the devil. :-O
Iamnottrevor1031 2 weeks ago
I think the most common christian argument i've heard is pascal's wager, which is extremely weak. After that would be intelligent design, telling me that darwin was wrong, and that evolution is false. All bologna of course.
TheBlakearmstrong 1 month ago
Someone must have hacked me, because I never wrote that crap below...I dont even believe in any kind of god :/
pillowlov 1 month ago
“Militant atheists seek to discredit religion based on a highly selective reading of history…[&]are quick to attribute many of the most unfortunate aspects of history to religion,yet rarely concede the immense debt that civilization owes to various monotheist religions,which created some of the world's greatest literature,art,&architecture;led the movement to abolish slavery;&fostered the development of science&technology...To regret religion is to regret our civilization&its achievements.”
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@prind666 Militant atheists mistakenly assume that a world without religion would be much as it is today, just minus the wars, ignorance, and oppression they attribute to theism...My question to atheists: Could we have gotten this far in history--scientifically, morally, technologically, and culturally--without religion? I believe the obvious answer is no."
Bruce Sheiman “An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It” (pg 93-4)
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 we wouldnt have gotten this far without wars either it deosnt mean they are a good or necessary thing.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 and ive read his book hes full of shit and christopher hitchens ripped him a new arse in one of his debates.
prind666 1 month ago
Of all the 1000s of cultures in history, the Bible, Jewish/Christian scientists & Creation science philosophy built the foundations of modern science (modern scientific method, peer review process, 1st scientific journals, falsification, occam’s razor,etc.) &pioneered most of its branches. Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) lectures on some of this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck (see notes & links)
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
Nature & New Scientist highly recommend Dr. Hannam’s work as solidly researched. The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy & they were drawing both principles & specific concepts, including scientific ones, directly from the Bible. Atheism has tried to kidnap science from its parents and & ban them from it, but is mostly a façade on a Christian superstructure.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@prind666 Jews & Protestants won ~86% of the Nobel prizes in science from 1900-1990. Without the Bible & Biblical scientists, you wouldn’t have modern science or at best you would be centuries behind the present. People who ridicule religion as the enemy of science are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Only people who hate science, facts and truth will try to distort history&separate science from the religion that built it.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@prind666 Btw, Dr. Hannam writes, "No one has ever been burnt at the stake for scientific views. In fact, the only important scientist ever to be executed was Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry. He was guillotined during the French revolutionary terror by the avowedly anti-Christian Jacobins."
If I claim that Alexander the Great didn't exist, it would have far more validity than claiming God doesn't exist. We have FAR more people with 1sthand experience with God than Alexander.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 mkay dreams feelings and hallucinations dont count as first hand experience. so the inquesistion (sorry for the spelling im absolutly horrible) dint kill any scientist going against the church? also the catholic church had a policy of house arrest and supression of knowledge that they used on people such as galileo. the church still has many scientific and philisophical documents to this day.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 Of all the 1000s of cultures in history, the Bible, Jewish/Christian scientists&Creation science philosophy built the foundations of modern science(modern scientific method, peer review process, 1st scientific journals, falsification, occam’s razor,etc.)&pioneered most of its branches.Dr. Hannam (Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge) lectures on some of this at the Royal Society(1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist):
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck(see notes&links)
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 now i do agree that christianity had a hand in the founding of science it was rather a hypocritical and sometimes repressive way. do you honestly think that plea to authority will get you anywere? especially when the authority is hundreds of years old? im not going to trust issac newton with modern day physics why should i trust anyone in that time period with insight into modern day science?
prind666 1 month ago
The Catholic church is a sister to atheism in many ways, because it replaces God's principles with human traditions, something Jesus' forbade in the strongest possible terms (Mark 7:5-9). But, no, they never did kill any scientist for his science. They persecuted Galileo because he challenged Aristotle whom they had accepted. The historians of science nearly all agree that Christianity was a great friend of science. Personal experiences with God, ARE evidence, not hallucinations.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@prind666 You have many misconceptions about Christianity. God never ever made us to fail, nor did he ask thanks for that. Many Christians believe that God's choice to give free will means that while He knows many things, He just knows all that can be known, not all future.
Modern science and history have confirmed the Bible in NUMEROUS ways. No, human rights are NOT subjective. If you know what science is, lack belief fails when ONE evidence is produced. Christianity has billions.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 name some. human rights are given by the nation and are percieved differently by different people.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 also all that can be known? define.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 Nature&New Scientist highly recommend Dr. Hannam’s work as solidly researched.The records of history show that the foundations & infrastructure of modern science, education, human rights, morals &more were built largely on a Christian/creationist philosophy&they were drawing both principles&specific concepts,including scientific ones, directly from the Bible.Atheism has tried to kidnap science from its parents & ban them from it, but is mostly a façade on a Christian superstructure.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 im sorry but modern science has done nothing but help disprove the bible and im not even going into education because its entirely subjective. human rights once again are subjective as is morality and Dr. Richard Dawkins has several essays and chapters in books on evolutionary morality.atheism no humanism yes but kidnap? no more like attach itself to and ban well thats the scientists option.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 Jews&Protestants won ~86% of the Nobel prizes in science from 1900-1990. Without the Bible & Biblical scientists,you wouldn’t have modern science or at best you would be centuries behind the present. People who ridicule religion as the enemy of science are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Only people who hate science, justice & rationality will try to distort history and separate science from the religion that built it.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 im honestly not sure if i want to journey down this road of fact checking. anyway CHRISTIANS have contributed to science but christianity has not im pretty sure the dark ages of science werent a positive thing. also astrology came from astronomy so what? chemisty came from alchemy again so what? science has disproven christianity so many times thats why they call them enemies!
prind666 1 month ago
I am going to have a debate with a theologian soon because one of my friends wants me to talk to his Youth Pastor about me being an atheist.
EeeAreEyeKay 2 months ago
From the sounds of it, I'm a science based feeler! The kind of person who looks at the natural beauty all around, the wonderful complexity of the world around us and simply says "I don't need to dimish this. I don't need to say this was made by a beardy man on a cloud and if I behave it's gonna get better. This is enough."
I highly recommend you listen to 'Storm' by Tim Minchin. Its a beat poem about a free thinker vs a, well, hippy. =P
Laurie2733 2 months ago
@Laurie2733 diminish , not dimish. Fail.
Laurie2733 2 months ago
Who are you to question GOD?
What they say: Who do you think you are? Who are you to question Almighty God? You are only a worthless, pitiful, meek human creation! What right has the clay to question the potter? human intellect is eclipsed by the sheer magnitude of Almighty God's omniscience!
What you say : ...and who do you think you are to question me ..you meek human-shaped clay, not even able to understand what I say.
pillowlov 4 months ago
@pillowlov well to start off with humans arent clay....... and its a horrible comparison because clay isnt sentient or alive. . he made us to fail and then he commands us to thank him for it, that makes him a fucking sadist. also omniscience takes away free will which meens hello we and god DONT HAVE FREE WILL. stop using the language of a police state. who are you to question his authority? you are worthless compared to him. if your god exists he needs to take some art lessons. :D
prind666 1 month ago
The "thinking atheist" has a great radio voice. does he have any formal training in broadcasting?
MarcZERO1980 5 months ago
@MarcZERO1980 well if he deosnt by now he has the experience of it.
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their vital structures, organs, reproductive systems hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 you seriosly dont understand evolution maybe you should take a few classes about it?
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 william lane criag.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 oh and they would have a hard time finding any scientists in the pertaining fields that dont believe in evolution and that arent EXTREMLY biased on the subject like those from the creation research site or any other christian research site. i have yet to see a scientist that deosnt believe in evolution that isnt biased on the subject. and yes creation scientists are biased on the subject they assume god did it then try and find evidence to back it up. thatsnothowscienceworks
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 could you please take a few science classes then come back with some feasable arguments.
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 well we have a modern day example the mud skipper and yes it has advantages.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 oh archeoptrix is a great example. you should debate discoverying religion hes great at debating people like you and in my opinion hes an expert on debunking your arguments.
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 so getting hunted down in savannas and not bieng able to see the predator because you cant see over the grass isnt a survival advantage.
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 nobody ever said it happens by chance lol/
prind666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 theres a huge blind spot bro! minor hits to the head can lead to blindness these arent flaws?
prind666 1 month ago
Debating is important because it lays out all the best arguments for either side so anyone who hadn't really had an inside or constant exposure to the topic at hand. It may not be to the benefit of the people debating, but it IS important. It helps get both messages out so they can be weighed on their merits.
LithiumLogica 5 months ago
I'm sorry, but I kind of find your comment about being amazed at atheists being persecuted more than atheists to be a bit insensitive.
I'm an atheist, but I am a strong gay rights defender, and I find it completely understandable that Christians dislike atheists more, since they think gays can repent and find God, while atheists don't. In their eyes, atheism is much worse than homosexuality.
Jobbeybob 5 months ago
@SpazzK Atheism has made yet another person stupid. It's not your fault exactly. Atheism has intentionally lied. But, you didn't think critically about atheisms claims and that is your fault. It was in the dark ages that the scientific method was pioneered and many branches of science started. The church preserved and protected from destruction much knowledge of the ancients.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 instead of Atheism making him dumb, how about he was just dumb to begin with.
whydoyouask123 5 months ago
@whydoyouask123 No. People are taught about the scientific method and historical method in school and ways to test credibility..at least in any school that deserves the name school. Atheism is the view that taught him to reject historical evidence and all witnesses that conflict with the atheist assertions. About the only people who make the claims he does are atheists.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 atheisms only claim is that god deosnt exist.
prind666 1 month ago
@prind666 Nearly all of atheism's claims in history have been debunked as pseudoscience or refuted in all sorts of ways. See some of the many videos on my channel.
TruthIsLife7 1 month ago
@TruthIsLife7 the only claim an atheist has about god is that he deosnt believe in him. i think your arguments about some other group such as secular humanism or pantheism.
prind666 1 month ago
This presentation by Dr. Hannam at the Royal Society (Dr. Hannam has a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge and Nature and New Scientist highly recommend his work.) lists quite a bit of evidence for how Christianity built the foundations of modern science:
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcomSLASHwatch?v=I-k24Q01vck (see the notes for a summary of the presentation)
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@SpazzK Historians don't even use the term Dark Ages anymore. Why?
"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things.
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpazzK "...It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there)
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
Seth: I've not heard of anyone converting a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, but I have known those who wore them down by inviting them into their homes and discussing the Bible with them. Those who have done so have been both of the theistic and atheistic persuasion... and the one who debated the most with them was an older Christian woman who knew her bible rather well... By the end of one of these sessions, they'd be all but begging to leave....
ishtarian 6 months ago
@TheThinkingAtheist Your sincerity is admirable,but badly misplaced.Atheism &theism existed for 1000s of years,but it was Christianity&creationist concepts that laid the foundations for modern science in many ways (pioneering many processes, the modern scientific method &most branches of science. Dr. Hannam just gave a presentation on this at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history, started by a creationist).
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Why do atheists refuse to think about this ;)
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Why don't you understand that when religion ruled science didn't progress? Dark Ages anyone?
SpazzK 5 months ago
It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." pg. 58 Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there)
TruthIsLife7 5 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 because christians at the time destroyed scientific knowledge and killed scientists! the only way christianity contributed to science is that it slowed it down!
prind666 1 month ago
See the notes in the above link for a short summary, but the whole thing deserves to be watched...and he has a much more detailed book which Nature and New Scientist have recommended.
With all due respect for sincere and admirable atheists out there, atheism is almost entirely built on hiding facts (like these), misrepresenting facts, opposing free thought when it has power, rejecting the weight of scientific evidence and using myriads of fallacies...all for no benefit whatsoever and much harm.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
All it takes is one seed of doubt to start the process. Probably why the devil is so feared in religious circles. The devil is not just the harbringer of evil, but he questions and stirs doubt. The "devils advocate" if you will...
skeletonmom 7 months ago
I don't think atheists debating theists really do anything for anyone. I used to be a Christian up until I was 17 and when I would watch debates before my "deconversion" I would dismiss all atheist arguments. It wasn't until I personally started investigating then I started to see the arguments for what they were.
BClipp 8 months ago
@BClipp Debates are entertaining...
mathkills 5 months ago
Buddhism said if we find contradictions or proven wrong answers they will stop following
its more philosophy though
BryantBergemann 8 months ago
Some other types:
The Ad Hominem Artist: NOTHING but insults! Paragraphs of insults, pages of insults - just when you think he's run out of ways to insult you , BLAM, new insult! There may or may not be a tiny smidgen of an argument inside the insults somewhere but yeah - INSULTS. Often the debate begins with him chastising you that you aren't even worthy of being debated.
templarart 8 months ago
@templarart
The Professor: Wow, isn't his vocabulary amazing?! I've met a couple 'professors' (named after the Professor from Gilligan's Island) who seek to sound like this fictional character. This is the extremely sophomoric act of writing in five-syllable words inside jargon-heavy text hoping to impress people with their vocabulary because their ideas are too weak to stand on their own! Atheists like Dawkins sound smarter when you understand them. Christians, however, sound dumber.
templarart 8 months ago
@templarart
Mr Cut and Paste: He's not actually reading your argument - he just finds a key phrase or two, puts it into google and then buries you in official apologetics for you to refute. Don't bother to refute them, there's always more to cut and paste and he's not really reading what you're writing anyway. Often if you take the time to refute him. He'll ignore your refutation, move on to a different topic and later make the same argument you refuted before. Also Mr Christian-go-round.
templarart 8 months ago
I was agnostic until yesterday, what happened yesterday, the thinking Atheist, im an Atheist now
TheOman1666 8 months ago
I'm loving your voice.
AngryRantingNerd 9 months ago
Why isn't this available on iTunes? Major fail there.
bugzilla2001 9 months ago
The Feeler sounds like Mr Flanders.
slugworth28 9 months ago
ive incountered another type.the type that jsut dont care about the facts and when you debate them they make up exuses like i used that why cant god heal amputies video and they say that the world dosnt work liek that than i say why not? hes god he can do anything. but they say that sience doesnt allow that but than i say well the star fish could regrow them so god cares about the starfish than his own children? but than he says well why cant god start evolution and blha blha but he just knows.
TonPappa 9 months ago
@TheThinkingAtheist...love listening to your podcasts, you are very entertaining and informative. You have some great rants, would love to see you guest host on The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty, or Jeff Dee....That would be an epic show.
odiewan58 9 months ago
Your videos are interesting, entertaining, and professional. And on top of it all, you have a excellent radio voice. How did you pull that off?
618033988749 9 months ago
@618033988749 It's all done with mirrors. :) Thanks so much for the kind words.
TheThinkingAtheist 9 months ago
@TheThinkingAtheist... Hey TA, If when you were religious, someone called you stupid or irrational, would that have served to drive you deeper into religion, feeling justified having been offended, OR would it have awakened you and helped you escape?
2eelShmeal 6 months ago
Yeah, he's right some people debate weakly
Elijahkings100 9 months ago
I'm a little late to this video, but I can attest that debate is useful. I was an evangelical when I started debating atheists; I was belligerent. Never visibly gave in. But the arguments started me reading everything I could find on science, philosophy, and religion. I never 'joined' pages, blogs, etc. Never commented. But I watched the discussions, and soon became an unbeliever. Don't assume you're not making a dent. And don't ever discount the the people listening on the sidelines.
TheIrrefutable 9 months ago
@TheIrrefutable
This is good to hear. Having discussions with theists can be fairly depressing when you feel like your arguing against a brick wall. But I'm glad we'r making a difference.
bl2489 9 months ago
Can people comment on this? "If the country wasn't so ignorant and lazy, Michael Jackson would still be alive". Give me some feedback
FreeSheep 9 months ago
@FreeSheep wtf
Spyderschwinky 9 months ago
I didn't watch the whole thing but yeah you are wasting time debating with delusional idiots, a debate between 2 intelligent people/teams always accomplishes something, because in the end a compromise is worked out, but a debate between 1 intelligent person/team and 1 deluded person/team (religious people) a compromise is never worked out, because the deluded side will always make up another excuse (with no explanation) as to why god is real
Anthony13USA 10 months ago
@Anthony13USA i mean its pretty obvious from your videos and videos from other atheist that religion makes the inside of your head dryer than a desert.
Anthony13USA 10 months ago
well,unicorns are not type of rhino or cow.I forgot one those.
vain911 10 months ago
Of course you are wasting your time.We don't need you.I believe talking flying electrical sexomaniac jesus donkeys are a plausible scenario.So FUCK OFF AND DIE debunkers and sceptics.Debunk my balls if you can assholes.I'll believe in anything Like.Got any fucking problem with that?
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap I'm guessing you're just a troll. Otherwise, you can believe whatever you like...until it interferes with my needs...then all bets are off and I'll do what needs doing regardless of your beliefs, or anything else about you. So, since one way or another you're completely irrelevant, believe whatever you like.
OriginalTharios 10 months ago
@OriginalTharios Yes correct,you can also believe whatever you like assuming you don't interfere with my needs either.
asasasarap 10 months ago
A guy I was debating compared God to a judge and asked if it was right to acquit a killer. I turned it around and asked if it was right to sentence every defendant (regardless of the crime) AND their children to death, kill someone else in their place, and forgive all crimes past and future, but only if they beg forgiveness. His reply was basically "of course because he's god." Then he said he had to ask god if he could still talk to me, since he's engaged and I might get the wrong idea.
BibleThumpingAtheist 10 months ago
I enjoyed your podcast, but the voice reminds me of a chester...keep it up.
Slacknutz 10 months ago
YES, DEBATES DO WORK!! Watching thousands of hours of scholarly debates online played a major role in breaking through my own nearly impenetrable wall of religious delusion (I was a fundementalist Christian preparing for ministry). I am now free from wickedly divisive fairy tales, and society is now a little bit better. Never give up proclaiming truth and unapologetically exposing deception! Peace!
Dhumm81 11 months ago
i was in texas for a while with my family and our freinds invited us into their house for a while then we went and was trapped in a bible meeting shit lol dude it was funny cuz i was athiest and every1 else was cristian and they all started crying for jesus and expected me too cry too lol
stonepown 11 months ago
There was a part in here where they mention jehova's witness being "out there" but not as far as Scientology etc. In my opinion, they are ALL equally "out there". Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Mormonism... non of them have evidence for their claims and i think the only difference between them is whether or not we as a society (and i suppose individuals) have become desensitized or not.
hawkister 1 year ago
I too love these podcasts.
OnionTrollsAlliance 1 year ago
My wife and I really enjoy listening to these podcasts! Keep up the good work, we plan to stream live on Friday;)
drtgonsteadchiro 1 year ago
I rofl'd at the reverse record impression at 12:40
ElectronicStuff4Free 1 year ago
I loved the feeler's voice you did. Sounded like a female Clinton :) hahaha. Love your work Seth!
SUMMEYWISE 1 year ago
Getting off of religious debates, I began loving debates based on listening to KGO, a San Fransisco AM radio talk show in the middle of the night in the early 80's. The talk show host's name was Ray Talyafarro (last name may be misspelled). I loved his debates with the callers, because he provoked anger in everyone. His style was to make people mad, even if you agreed with him. He would turn a person's agreement to a disagreement. He was loud, and proud. I hated him, and loved him.
chapmaned 1 year ago
Good question. You're never going to convince the fundamentalists in a debate, but there are plenty of people who may be 'on the fence' or genuinely trying to find an answer. For these people watching or listening to these debates can help them form an answer using the information given in the debate. Hopefully with more people exposed to these debates you get more people making an informed rational decision instead of only having their local indoctrination as sole option.
spoonlamp 1 year ago
I love debating! And I believe debating is more effective for those that are watching. When youre debating its hard to take a look from the outside because you're concentrated on what are the points being made. After debating I usually read/watch the entire debate to see where I could have done better. Its a great way to exercise your mind!
whchain 1 year ago
I recently replied to a friend's facebook post about God's love, with Luke 14:26 where Jesus says you have to hate all your family and friends and even yourself to be his follower and all she did was just respond with scripture that says god is love, and never actually dealt with what I had posted. She's a feeler.
Dudeamis 1 year ago
@Dudeamis So that means only emos can be disciples? hahaha
AdamBomb669 1 year ago
I tend to think that most of the value of debate is what happens around the debate rather than what happens in it.
When I was a christian it was precisely by deciding to prepare myself to debate with people that lead me to de-convert when I realized that my beliefs had no solid foundation.
jokidder 1 year ago
You've got a great broadcasting voice! Reminds me somewhat of Bob Dutko on WMUZ radio, Detroit. He hosts a talk show from 1-3 PM ET..... Now there's a good guy for a debate......he's a new earth creationist and full of the usual Christian *proofs*.....& dogmatic as hell.
Took me over 40 years to get 'born again'...er, uh....with the truth of atheism that is. ;)
LordSauceness 1 year ago
"Stupid people do stupid things.Smart people outsmart each other"
MaximumOfaHero 1 year ago
I became an atheist simply because of the Philosophy of Religion class. Structured debate within the class was crucial to my deconvertion. Most people simply cant be forced to even listen to philosophical arguments for 10 minutes. But being exposed to philosophy, reason and honest discussion during the entire semester was the most mind opening experience of my life.
QueryTruth 1 year ago
I heard an argument from a Christian that people in the Army and Police are all sinners because they kill people. Therefore we should get rid of those institutions. So, I asked her: "What's your solution?"
Her response: "People just need to behave better!"
(No, I wasn't talking to a 5 year old. She was 17 )
QueryTruth 1 year ago
@QueryTruth , From one anecdote, we are supposed to adduce what?
l8rthen 1 year ago
If the moon is a satanic symbol then why the God make it? Do these people think?
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
He is a funny guy--an evangelical atheist.
garmaxco 1 year ago
Well, if the person you're talking to can use some common sense, then "debating" them is good. If they're like Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort, it's educating them, which is the opposite of a debate.
SQuiRR3LM0nk3y 1 year ago
Debating sucks and burns bridges but it is necessary. That's how I got my hands on the red pill.
brothadave 1 year ago
Comment removed
brothadave 1 year ago
Seth, Dude, You have a great voice! And brilliant arguments! Keep up the good work!
rbxCriss 1 year ago
"Decimate" means to reduce by a tenth. It was used as a punishment at random for mutinies or cowards. Romans would draw lots for one tenth of the legion involved to be brutally punished and then executed. Not to harp on you ThinkingAtheist. With love, :3
AliceEis 1 year ago
@jasonbertles Thanks for the input, but that's not quite what I meant. I guess I should have been more specific. What I'd really like to do is just give my brother the little tidbits of information that would help him to start questioning his beliefs. The rest would be his journey, though I'd be there to help him if he asked.
Elemental135 1 year ago
@Elemental135 That makes more sense. And being only 10 and (presumably) expected to be faithful then things can get curly. He's too young to read Dawkins and Hitchens, clearly, however there is an AWESOME series that Dawkins did for children years ago (lookup Christmas Lectures for Children on YouTube). They are a great introduction to science. I'd probably just encourage your brother to learn how beautiful the world is through exploration and self discovery. Best of luck.
jasonbertles 1 year ago
Debate should be a tool to challenge, refine, and solidify your own beliefs. It shouldn't be used to feed your ego or force your way of thinking on others.
The language used by the atheists on this channel is just as cocksure as many of the theists they're criticizing. Nobody knows everything and people who think they do know less than most.
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot
Kudos! Great comment!
l8rthen 1 year ago
You're awesome, I know all 4 types :D
JorgeSkychaser 1 year ago
The reason people don't listen is because they don't know. They BELIEVE. Belief is all about "knowing" without any proof whatsoever. Belief is about feeling certain no matter what happens, no matter what anyone proves to you. It's futile argumentation by definition.
mandolinroad 1 year ago
I think debating is very effective. If you Google the words "former minister atheist author" it's gratifying to see how many names you get. Debating makes people think, and if they're intelligent, do research. More than one former minister has lost his religion while researching for information to use in arguments against atheists ... for reasons that are obvious to any atheist.
wavymavy 1 year ago
I'm an atheist in a catholic family, and hope to convert my little brother, age 10, to atheism. He still believes in Santa Claus, so I may want to wait a bit. Any ideas on how to plant the seed? I only have about 3 1/2 years before I move out, so he needs to be pretty convinced before he enters highschool.
I really want to help him listen to reason.
Elemental135 1 year ago
@Elemental135
Wait a few years and start sending him the other videos by TheThinkingAtheist. Just send them and say "hey, I thought this was pretty funny" and let him watch it. This way they won't be on the defense. That and comedians who rip on religion. Then link him some Wikipedia articles on philosophy; Russel's teapot, circular reasoning, and use them on other religions. Explain why Zeus, Hinduism etc, isn't real.Then he'll use that same analytic methodology on his own beliefs, alone.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@trekgeek1
Or U could just be up front and tell the truth without any subterfuge. Always a good way to go, imo.
l8rthen 1 year ago
@l8rthen
My method is intended to avoid raising their defenses.
trekgeek1 1 year ago
@Elemental135 I think it's hypocritical for us atheists to seek to "convert" the religious (particularly a child) to our way of thinking. Forcing a belief system on another person is kind of what got us into this mess in the first place, you know what I mean? I think it would be wiser to let him know there are people who believe different things out there and point him to places where he can discover more. It should be his journey. My thoughts, anyway.
jasonbertles 1 year ago
@jasonbertles , Kudos. Another rarity, integrity!
l8rthen 1 year ago
@Elemental135
have him read the bible.
pyr666 1 year ago
What's so messed up, people with political ideologies are the same way and when you call them on something or disagree with them, even on just something little, they go ape shit! This happened with me on the shooting in Arizona. People were believing hype that was put out by the media and running with it. Then they started politicizing it. Sad!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Dude,of course they don't listen.The Christian religion has the belied that if you don't have faith then you go to hell.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith.
If you don't belief you can go to hell and your taught this from youth.How do you think there going to act.They have to ignore atheist to not be tortured.
vain911 1 year ago
@vain911 yah... ppl can force each other to murder. How is that different. Is forcing a good act on another truely justafialbe(sry 4 splling)
apex588 1 year ago
@apex588 I'm not saying it's good,no,It's opposite.I just became an atheist.I think back to only months ago and I remember not studying certain things for two reasons.I thought it was dumb because group dynamics.A few years before,I believed in evolution,it got me out questioning things but God.I begain to talk to people and evolution seemed silly,so I choice to live by "faith".I didn't want hell.So because a group dynamics in churc and faith(hell or touture.).
vain911 1 year ago
Also I believe the best way to deconvert them,is reading them unbearable parts of the bible.The part of the bible that condones rape stoning,His enemies to eat there own babies.There are the parts that help,Arguing about noah might help but you start at the hate scriptures then to foolish ones.
vain911 1 year ago
Love the show!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Musta been God who messed up your sound card ;) Great podcast, some really fantastic calls.
Eminemno1fan 1 year ago
I used to love debating, learning and finding out what makes other people tick and believe in (x), (y) and (z).
But now, I only see debates as a test stubbornness or the same old argument being played over and over and over again until you get to a point where you're bashing the guy for not looking it up in the first place.
Leonis1989 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dude has a fixation with xtians. almost religiously so. Reminds me of shakespeare 'methinks he doth protest too much'
Hope he is able to move on sometime. Unless though he makes his money like a televangelist.
l8rthen 1 year ago
@l8rthen
It's this guys job to talk about what callers ask. If your boss tells you to go and repair wheelchairs, are wheelchairs then your fixation?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 year ago
@l8rthen Hey Einstein. Christianity is my background, so that's where my focus lies. After escaping the dogma that imprisoned me for so long, I hope to help others to do the same.
TheThinkingAtheist 1 year ago
@TheThinkingAtheist well responded sir.
I scaped the dogma that imprisoned me for so long too. Keep up the good work, new born thinkers will appreciate it.
3dfreak 1 year ago
@TheThinkingAtheist I have a bad feeling you didn't really mean it when you called him Einstein.
Teaspooninjabot 10 months ago
@TheThinkingAtheist You are helping others get their heads screwed on straight, and I am one of them. Thanks so much for the info.
ndrthrdr1 9 months ago
@l8rthen Yes, Seth is BATHING in the $0.00 dollars I have sent him! I hope there is a special place in hell (ha, ha) for him!!!
g24cjm 1 year ago
@l8rthen Which religion do you think has the most effect in the law, tries to subvert science for school children, and has many dedicated tv channels in America? It seems sensible for an American atheist to focus on Christianity.
Not enough people protest.
SpookyFan 1 year ago
@SpookyFan , From my view point in the DC Metro area, xtians are no longer the pulling power they used to be.
Separately, there is such a thing as unhealthy when Ur whole life seems to be fixating against a singular issue. Seems to have a lot in common with televangelists, or like one who cannot stop telling all just how bad their ex was. IMO.
l8rthen 1 year ago
@l8rthen No, no, no. That's the omnipotent and almighty God who needs man-made money, remember?
allmakescombined 1 year ago
@l8rthen yea just keep ignoring the facts. Why would it matter to a christian anyways? arent you guys immortal beings??
makshobelosa 1 year ago
@l8rthen Silly :)
trueleroix 1 year ago
@l8rthen
ah the old he talks about Yahweh so that must mean he's a secret believer argument.
Dudeamis 1 year ago
@l8rthen zzzzzzzzzz religion is a big issue that affects millions of people and our society in numerous ways. Your false equivalence to xtian televangelism is extremely lame and completely baseless. I can assure you TTA does not pull in the money the tv preachers make. Not even close, not even in the same ballpark, doesn't even have a ballpark.
dubbleplusgood 1 year ago
@dubbleplusgood ,
Umm,
claim? U mean suggestion?
completely baseless? How would U know? Sounds like groupspeak dogma to me
What does dollar amt have to do with this?
Still an emotional fixation; sort of like having a friend whose wife has cheated on him and he can't seem to get over it.
l8rthen 1 year ago
We all reach that point where we ask ourselves, "what's the point?" I find myself grounded when i think the things i post (videos, comments, debates) are all in public. They are all accessible to the public. Even if i'm not popular, i do have some listeners, and i can try to bring some information or a way of thinking for the layperson to understand what we mean (because i can be slow sometimes, too). Someone on the fence may see my reasoning and begin to break their religious shackles.
limegreensquid 1 year ago