Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
If we keep voting Republican, someday we will be able to stone disobedient children and burn witches again! Amen! Praise Jesus! Come get saved at my channel! Jesus was a Republican!
@randomperson2538 Why does everyone always say that to me? I am just following the Bible to the letter and some atheist will say to me: "You be trollin'" or "Nice satire". I am just carrying out the logical entailment of Biblical teaching. How is that funny?
Have you accepted Jesus' ultimate temporary sacrifice?
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins Becuase it seems as though you're overacting on the part and highlighting how stupid it looks. Overdoing a stereotype as it were.
Lol temporary? Sacrifice?!
All he did was die, then he went to heaven and got whatever he wanted and is now worshipped by a huge percentage of people on this planet. I don't see how in your religion that dying is a sacrifice.
Read any so-called holy book. I challenge you to find a single instruction to respect other world views. The notion that one can be both hell-bound and respected is rather inconsistent to say the least.
Respect is conditional in that it is earned. Right intentions + Right deeds = respect in my mind. Respect should not be conflated with good manners, which is the way people are able to burgeon respect toward one another.
@SPQRomantic Sure. Then what's your point? That Christians should all go around raping people's minds with crap?
I think the one who missed the point was you. In society we have something called democracy and a constitution, and a book of law. In this book we have established our laws which we have found to be most benefitting for society through a social prgress which has been going on for thousands of years.
So no, murder is not okay just cause you don't believe it's wrong.
@TheRepugnantAsshole The point is exactly what I said, all legislation is done on the basis of belief. Criticizing the legislation of beliefs is the criticize legislation itself.
@TheRepugnantAsshole AE said not to legislate beliefs. I asked if murder was one of those beliefs we can't legislate. You can't seem to separate believing something is wrong from the though process used to reach the belief that it is wrong.
Example: I believe murder is wrong. It should be banned for everyone.
If other people agree, murder is banned. That is the legislation of your personal beliefs. If we took, "Do not legislate your beliefs onto others" seriously, no laws could be passed
@SPQRomantic When he says beliefs he means your beliefs in a higher power. To legislate ones religious beliefs has been proven not to work out.
They were speaking in a religious context, hence by personal beliefs he means religgious beliefs. So, all in all he means that it's wrong to legislate ones beliefs about religion.
Can you finally get it through your thick head? Or wait, don't answer. Unless you're a masochist, of course.
We should have no qualm about scorning the self deluded, irrational, parasitic religious. They deserve no respect, only ridicule, disdain, and contempt. There ridicules beliefs are 1st century ignorance and fear at its worst. It is of the utmost importance for the health of civilization to eradicate the god virus. With information so easily available being ignorant today is by choice.
Every charlatan or dupe that makes up or follows some random, cockamamie belief about anything doesn't deserve respect for those beliefs just because they believe it.
Every charlatan or dupe that makes up or follows some random, cockamamie belief about anything doesn't deserve respect for those beliefs just because they believe it.
I think respect is conditional. You need to show someone respect in order to get respect. The caller himself actually seemed deserving of it because he wasn't being a complete asshat about his question; he was acting respectful towards them, and in turn they acted respectful towards him.
Respect IS conditional. That is quite true. I find that it is conditional upon whether the person I am communicating with has earned my respect. In the case of Christianity, the baseline assumptions are that I am born into this world with the burden of an ancestors sin upon me. That if I do not believe the same set religious beliefs, then the Just, loving god, whom they worship, will torture me for an eternity. That is my very idea of disrespect.Their only redemption, is to cease this belief.
"Respect is conditional, so long as you believe what I believe."
So it's basically the same drivel. I will respect you on the condition that you believe the same things I do, but when you disagree with me, all bets are off [and you deserve to be burned in hell].
Yes, respect is conditional. Tell that to your God who manipulates, blackmails and threatens us into accepting his "love"; obedience and worship. I do not respect such a God.
Thankfully there's no reason to believe he exists.
Whenever you have a forum like this, the hosts are not going to be able to walk on eggshells and still have an effective and fruitful discussion. Someone IS going to be offended. When I check out clips by theists stating their opinions regarding my lack of belief in their god, I get a bit hot hearing the things they say--that I have no morality, that I'm stupid, deluded, a cancer on society, and deserving of both pity and ridicule. Respect? Maybe--but this is a door that swings both ways.
"If a person's beliefs are absolutely NOT open to change in the face of reasoned argument and evidence,THEY are the ones responsible for that. The rest of us are in no way obligated tiptoe around someone who's chosen to isolate their beliefs from criticism and react with hostility toward anyone who disagrees with them. It's plainly unreasonable to hold a permanently unchangeable belief that's preserved by sheer force of ignorance. We are not the ones at fault here." - Zinnia Jones
I think its ridiculous that they expect others to respect their beliefs... if I claim that I have a pink unicorn in the trunk of my car, they would not (and should not) respect that belief not matter how sincerely I say "that's what I believe"... some beliefs are absurd and deserve to be laughed at.
If we as nonbelievers do not respect the beliefs of believers, we still must have tact, we must have couth and we must respect the individuals who deserve respect by the virtue of being an open, honest, and respectable people, where applicable. We must be patient.
Everybody is different. Everybody is an individual, even believers. We must treat people accordingly, on their individual merits.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a good piece of advice.
I only respect people's beliefs that make some kind of sense and don't hurt other people. Theism does not deserve the respect that people think it does. Especially considering the things it allows people to do in its name.
@Belloran24 You misunderstand Theism. Theism in its pure form, means believing in a personal God who interacts with His creatures. You don't have to be part of an organised religion to be Theist.
@nowayout001 it doesn't matter weather a person is involved with a religion or not. the idea that a person feels the need for their beliefs to be respected when there's no reasonable reason to be believing what they think is true is rediculous. i think what most people mean to say (or what they should be saying) is they wan't others to be courteous when addressing their beliefs. courtesy and respect are not one in the same. believing in the supernatural is not worthy of respect.
@a10miletooth No, sweetie, I have to disagree. The religions don't want mere courtesy. They want respect. Abject bowing and scraping and honorifics. They demand that you give authority to their tenets and dogmas and they demand that you give THEM respect for believing these follies. It's not courtesy they demand. In return for this demanded respect, they will return either fake pity, thinly veiled arrogance or stifling condescension. Occasionally, outright contempt.
@ciaochowbella oh, believe me, i know that all too well. what i was saying is that they don't understand what should or shouldn't be respected just because an opposing view is offensive. i've never met a single religious person able to give a reason on why any religious belief should be respected, only that they believe they should be but never why. which is just mind numbing.
The only answer I get is "my religion is sacred', but then when asked if they would make fun of other religions or sects, they do so willingly. I heard a report that a majority of UK muslims want free speech limited in regards to religion. The same thing happens w/ bill donahue from the catholic league anytime anyone insults his ideals. They never understand that free speech laws are designed to protect speech like that, unpopular speech. It's the whole bloody point!
Anyone seen the episode "I, Borg" with Hue? I think that really is a great look at the joruny to becoming an atheist. At first you're like "No, you're wrong! Only my way is correct!" But than you start seeing more and more of what they have, and so you start to learn from it, and than before you know it, you're one of them noticing all your former flaws, and all your old people's tricks.
And then you eventually rejoin the church, and become unhappy with the experiments the head of the church and his identical brother perform on the congregation...
Koryk1: "we are fallen angels, practically demonic"
But we're made "in His (God's) image", correct? I am Atheist, but for me, God and religion are separate questions. Still, I can't help but wonder why I should worship a God who made me in the image of a demonic fallen angel.
1. It shows he's not "Omni" anything.
2. He thinks I'm a sinner, but HE made me this way.
3. Would punish me for eternity for "said" sins (sins HE created).
This is the SHORT list of things wrong with this being.
I mean, this whole "free will" thing is bunk anyway. Not just for the contradictory reason of God knowing the future, etc., but also because, Why punish someone for making a choice YOU gave them? Christians say that if God eliminated evil with his powers, that would take away our right to choose to do it - thereby destroying "free will".
If you built a sentient robot, and never programmed it to kill, it could still live a happy life with no knowledge of murder. However, if you specifically...
Basically, if one knows the future, then one already has definite knowledge of what is already going to happen. This eliminates the ability to change that happening. If that "happening" can be changed, then the "future knower" doesn't really know the future - he just knows a possible outcome - which is not the same. We all know possible outcomes. Knowing the future however requires definite knowledge, and if that knowledge is definite, it can't be changed.
right. but knowing the future surely doesn't negate free will? if i give you the choice of life or death, and i know you are going to choose life, how have i impinged on your free will to choose?
the future can't be changed, but does that mean the choices that lead to it weren't free? i think knowledge of the future and dictating the future are different, no?
If you know, definitively (somehow), that I am going to choose life, then it was never a possibility for me to choose otherwise, so it wasn't a free choice. It was already and always predetermined.
However, if you "know" I am going to choose life because most everyone would choose life, that's not truly "knowing", that's just strong belief. In that case, it is a free choice.
this is, i think, where you are getting it wrong. how does my knowledge of what you chose limit your free will? You are the one who made the choice. i have not set any limits on your will, it is a free choice. because i happen to know what you chose means nothing with regards to your ability to choose. the fact that i know what you chose only means that i know what the outcome is, not that i have determined the future for you. the rest of your posts are u8nnecessary.
As for you, if your response to someone explaining their argument is to say it's "unnecessary", then actually, you're unecessary - as is the continuance of this exchange.
i think it is dishonest of you to characterize my response this way. that was one sentence at the end of a logical argument, which i notice you didn't even attempt to refute, stating that your exposition was irrelevant to the argument. if you care to refute what i posted, i'm interested to read it. otherwise, i'll accept your lame reply as the concession of defeat it implies.
i didn't realise mirepresenting my position was an exchange of ideas.
knowledge of the future, and pre-determination are different things. the future is the result of free choices, and knowing what the results are does not limit the freedom that allowed the choice.
things could only have happened one way, or this is the observation of the things that happened.
you can't change the future because it hasn't happened yet, not because you observed it.
It's really simple, actually. It's not even about the outcome of the choice - if your God definitively knows the future, then he knows the very choice I will make - forget the outcome. If that is true about the God, then I could have made no other choice to begin with. The "Free will" I used to make the "choice" didn't exist.
i still don't see the connection between knowing what you will choose, using your own free will, and determining the choice for you, or limiting your choice. your choice didn't happen in the future. the knowledge of the outcome did. for you, the future does not exist, therfore you are not bound to any knowledge this god has of your choice. you are free to choose, and the result of your choice is what this god knows. you have not been limited. btw i don't believe in gods.
2. Forgive me for the assumption about your beliefs - I usually only get your argument from Theists.
As for free will, I don't know how else to explain it. If you choose to eat a sandwich, and someone knew absolutely and definitively that you would eat that sandwich, then you could have chosen nothing else. had you chosen (or been able to choose) anything else, they would not have KNOWN the future - they would only be guessing at it.
i think i could have chosen anything else. all that person knows is what i did choose. the thing they know is a result of my free choice. it does not say that i couldn't have chosen any other sandwich, only that i chose the one i chose.
what happened, happened. it happened as a reult of free will, regardless of who knew it would.
but that's my point. for me, the event hasn't happened. therefore, i am not bound to it. i can choose whatever at will. only after i have made my choice does it become something to know. i am picturing existence as a long movie, where i can see all the choices people are going to make. but i'm not writing the script; they are. i am only seeing the choices they will make of their free will.
I understand. I am not saying you are writing the script - I am saying that just by knowing the script, their free will is eliminated. You didn't need to take any action - your knowledge was all that was necessary.
If they do anything other than what you read, then you didn't really know THE script, you knew A script. That is something a little bit different (that we can also go into).
but they are making their own choices. i agree that if they do anything different i didn't know the script. that says nothing about their free will, it says i didn't have knowledge of the future. if i give you a choice, A or B, and i Know you will choose A, it doesn't mean you could have only chosen A because your FW was eliminated, it means you chose A. you have to make the choice in the present for me to know what you will choose in the future, because the future doesn't exist for you.
The first part of your statement is exactly what I'm getting at. :)
If the characters in the movie exercise free will, and that wasn't written into the script you read, then, as you agreed, you didn't really know the script. That's all I'm getting at - if we have free will, then no one can definitively know what we will do in the future. Either we have free will and no one can tell the future, or someone CAN tell the future and we have NO free will. I believe the former.
i'm saying the script was written by the free choices of the people. i believe we have free will, and no one can definitively know the future. this is all hyppothetical. but if someoone could know the future, which doesn't exist because we have not yet created it with our FW, what they would know is the result of the choices we made. the future does not dictate our past actions, it reflects them.
Aha! I thought this was happening - we're discussing two different things. I'm discussing what Theists mean when they discuss an Omniscient God. That is, that God knows the very choice itself, and so I argue that the choice is not born of free will because God has determined the choice by knowing it absolutely.
You're discussing the RESULT of the choice, and that is where our disconnect has lain. I suspected as much. OK, regarding my position on your point...
well, that is because the future doesn't exist, so to argue about someone having knowledge of something that doesn't exist, i tried to establish how a future could exist, and it would exist as a reflection of the FW choices we make.
i still don't see how their god knowing the choice they are going to make determines the choice. all He knows is the choice you are going to make. you could have chosen A or B, but He knows you will choose A, no?
... In my view, what you describe is not one actually having knowledge of the future, it is of one having knowledge of the future POSSIBILITIES (forgive CAPS - no italics on YouTube).
For instance "I know that if a man jumps out of that window, he will fall 12 stories)" But it is up to him to jump out of that window. I presume that is your meaning.
In my view, that is not true knowledge, but rather belief based on education and observation, because he may indeed jump, but land on a balloon...
.. which you wouldn't have known would happen. So you knew what COULD happen in a limited circumstance, but not what would ACTUALLY happen. I don't mean to discount education and observation - I was just making a point within this context. I believe education and observation are the way to go. (Education being what you learned in school, and observation being what you learned in your own experiences with gravity.)
that is right. and it follows that someone can not be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time :) if you know you can't change it, if you can change it, you can not know
It appears my first post didn't come through. I said:
1. I'll decide for myself what is necessary to make my point, thank you.
2. Forgive me for responding from my 2nd account. Didn't mean to cause any confusion.
Lastly, you didn't read my posts clearly, so maybe more were necessary after all. I never said the "future knower" creates limitations - he doesn't need to. The limitations are inherent. Just by having that knowledge, the "limitation" becomes extant with no additional work.
I'm not saying free will can't exist if God exists - I'm saying free will can't exist if that God had predetermined knowledge of the future. It would seem to US we made a free choice, but if that "God" being already knew definitively what we were going to do, then our perception of free will was just an illusion.
Regarding the future, the knowledge that we generally refer to is not actual empirical knowledge, but rather, "knowledge of possibility". For example:
We all "know" that if one falls from a skyscraper, he dies. That is common "knowledge". However, the *possibility* exists that one person may fall from the top window and live. And for that person, our common "knowledge" would have failed us. What we really "knew" was that death was a possibility - not an inevitability. The knowledge of the...
... the knowledge of the future that many imply a God would have is stated to be his (or her or its) *empirical* knowledge. If this knowledge is empirical, it can't be changed, so therefore free will would be illusory on our part.
... added a killing program to it and then it went out and killed someone, would you then be upset that it did what YOU programmed it to do? Before the program, it had free will (minus the ability to kill). After the program, it had free will (PLUS the ability to kill). The robot WITHOUT a killing program has no less free will than a human with no knowledge of hats. By Christian measure then, everything I DON'T have knowledge of (which is considerable) limits my free will. So what's one more?
The eimination of "evil" would basically cause life to be no different - except for the lack of knowledge of "evil". When you have a child, you put a guard on the stairs so they don't fall. You don't give the child the option of falling down the stairs and then punish the child when he does so. Personally, I rather enjoy this version of the world, but if Christians want to prove God's existence, the elimination of all the existing pains of life might be a start - whatever those may be... :)
"Don't you see that Jesus' ways are the best way."
It would help if you Christians actually fixated on Jesus' teachings as opposed to cherry-picking from sections of the Bible and attempting to impose those areas. Especially nonsensical Old Testament rubbish.
Why is the Old Testament even part of your Bible? It predates Christ and is filled with some of the most horrific stories the likes of which would give Stephen King and Dean Koontz nightmares.
Thank You!!! This is one of the major questions I keep asking (among the HUNDREDS of others). Jesus himself (if he lived and preached) often contradicts MUCH of the old testament - in his own "words"!
Where does he say that? And in any case, it is still ridiculous. Maybe we should start a religion around Martin Luther King. He said and did great things too. He must be a God. People can worship him and commit all sorts of horrible acts in his name as well... I'd like to be here in 2000 years to see if that actually happens....
When religous say we should show them "respect" and complain that what we say about them "offends them", do they not consider that maybe I'm offended by the fact they think I'm going to hell for eternity and they're going to heaven?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The world timeline is based on Christ. Its not a religion, he just was sent by whatever, be it extra-terrestrials.
Simply to show humans the right way, to put aside these worldly desires. This life is short, and the blood and physical part of it is a testimony of how its not the be all/end all.
There is more to it afterward, believe me, for I have done the work of many thousands of men.
They don't see that their ways are wrong. Don't you see that Jesus' ways are the best way.
@BeforeTheNoose And if you truly feel you're right, it shouldn't bother you to be laughed at.
If someone laughs at me for saying the earth is a sphere, I'm not going to get bothered. I'd feel bad they're so stupid, but I'm not going to be "offended."
And what the guy on the phone doesnt realize is how we are all condition from society and basically everything else we encounter. Everything about you has to do with how you are brought up and what you come into contact with in your life. So really, its like you are a programmed robot, not matter how open minded with think we are.
may seem like that to you, but in all honesty, its going to seem like an illusion because we have free will. or atleast that is seems we have free will. i could be wrong, but you know. but think about it like this. You act based upon how the environment around you changes and works. This is going to cause you to act accroding to it. thats a really bad example and its vague lol. its hard to explain it haha im sure you understand though!
Sure, you are basically pointing out determinism - the state of reality at instant t+1 is already determined at instant t (this rule applies recursively). Still, this model is useless because whether it is true or not, the consequences are the same. It reminds me of the idea of sollipsism (the outside world does not exist, it just seems to you that it does), which is also empty of consequences.
No you are right people are biological robots. As for free will responses to stimuli are limited and as proof watch a show like candid camera. You will see people reacting to strange situations, in the same robotic fashion as if it was an everyday occurance. Thereby proving they are usually going on autopilot. I admit my own guilt. I like to think I am a thinker, but I catch my self autopiloting.
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
"I em a bilivuh" what
Crosell 5 months ago
If we keep voting Republican, someday we will be able to stone disobedient children and burn witches again! Amen! Praise Jesus! Come get saved at my channel! Jesus was a Republican!
GodlyBillyBobJenkins 5 months ago
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins lol nice satire im guessing?
randomperson2538 4 months ago
@randomperson2538 Why does everyone always say that to me? I am just following the Bible to the letter and some atheist will say to me: "You be trollin'" or "Nice satire". I am just carrying out the logical entailment of Biblical teaching. How is that funny?
Have you accepted Jesus' ultimate temporary sacrifice?
GodlyBillyBobJenkins 4 months ago
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins Becuase it seems as though you're overacting on the part and highlighting how stupid it looks. Overdoing a stereotype as it were.
Lol temporary? Sacrifice?!
All he did was die, then he went to heaven and got whatever he wanted and is now worshipped by a huge percentage of people on this planet. I don't see how in your religion that dying is a sacrifice.
And I've never heard anyone call it temporary.
randomperson2538 4 months ago
@GodlyBillyBobJenkins God bless you for the 'lols' I have received.
1992jamo 4 months ago
Read any so-called holy book. I challenge you to find a single instruction to respect other world views. The notion that one can be both hell-bound and respected is rather inconsistent to say the least.
rldickie 6 months ago
Respect is conditional in that it is earned. Right intentions + Right deeds = respect in my mind. Respect should not be conflated with good manners, which is the way people are able to burgeon respect toward one another.
Thatmakessense356 6 months ago
Do George Carlin references get as old as Chuck Norris jokes? Coz I've got another one:
"I have a right to my opinion!" "Yeah & I have a right to MY opinion, & my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion!"
Personally, you don't force your beliefs on me & then I'll respect them, as long as you can respect mine, too; fair IS fair, after all
Tarynus 6 months ago
I don't understand when atheists say, "I wouldn't legislate my beliefs on anyone else."
What does that mean? I believe murder is wrong, does that mean we can't ban murder?
SPQRomantic 6 months ago
@SPQRomantic There's a difference between, personal, philosophical and religious beliefs and established societal laws.
I'm sorry, but religion is not the cause as to why we keep murder illegal today.
TheRepugnantAsshole 6 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole You completely missed the point. All laws are the legislation of beliefs.
SPQRomantic 6 months ago
@SPQRomantic Sure. Then what's your point? That Christians should all go around raping people's minds with crap?
I think the one who missed the point was you. In society we have something called democracy and a constitution, and a book of law. In this book we have established our laws which we have found to be most benefitting for society through a social prgress which has been going on for thousands of years.
So no, murder is not okay just cause you don't believe it's wrong.
TheRepugnantAsshole 6 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole The point is exactly what I said, all legislation is done on the basis of belief. Criticizing the legislation of beliefs is the criticize legislation itself.
SPQRomantic 6 months ago
@SPQRomantic To legistate ones personal beliefs is different from escaping demoractically established laws.
Religion and state are separated. Beliefs are different from laws. Please get this.
TheRepugnantAsshole 5 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole Holy fuck you are trying to be dumb. EVERY LAW is passed on the basis of the collective personal beliefs of the legislators.
"beliefs are different from laws" - No shit. You believe something is wrong, then you legislate it onto others.
"To legistate ones personal beliefs is different from escaping demoractically established laws"
Every belief you have is a personal belief. This includes stealing being wrong.
This seems pretty difficult for you to understand.
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
Stop being such a dumb cunt. You said that you BELIEVED that murder was wrong, therefore we shouldn't ban it. That was your example.
I'm telling you that sort of thinking os fucking retarded. Legistating your own religious views upon others have nothing to do with established laws.
How the fuck you're not getting this is beyond me. What you believe is one thing, what we believe as a democratic group is another.
Besides, religious beliefs are theoretical, murder is practical.
TheRepugnantAsshole 5 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole AE said not to legislate beliefs. I asked if murder was one of those beliefs we can't legislate. You can't seem to separate believing something is wrong from the though process used to reach the belief that it is wrong.
Example: I believe murder is wrong. It should be banned for everyone.
If other people agree, murder is banned. That is the legislation of your personal beliefs. If we took, "Do not legislate your beliefs onto others" seriously, no laws could be passed
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
@SPQRomantic When he says beliefs he means your beliefs in a higher power. To legislate ones religious beliefs has been proven not to work out.
They were speaking in a religious context, hence by personal beliefs he means religgious beliefs. So, all in all he means that it's wrong to legislate ones beliefs about religion.
Can you finally get it through your thick head? Or wait, don't answer. Unless you're a masochist, of course.
TheRepugnantAsshole 5 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole lol i troll u
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
@SPQRomantic No, you're not a troll. Obviously you're just a dumb cunt.
TheRepugnantAsshole 5 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole u mad?
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
@SPQRomantic No, I'm just a general asshole.
TheRepugnantAsshole 5 months ago
@TheRepugnantAsshole If you are saying I cannot advocate a law on the motivation of my religion, that is just unreasonable.
Imagine if I told liberals, "You aren't allowed to advocate legislation if it is motivated by your liberal beliefs." People would just laugh.
SPQRomantic 5 months ago
Anybody know what Steve Harvey sai about atheism? He said some stupid idiotic crap.
jeremythehuman 6 months ago
r.e.s.p.e.c.t. find out what it means to me
CntrBrdr 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We should have no qualm about scorning the self deluded, irrational, parasitic religious. They deserve no respect, only ridicule, disdain, and contempt. There ridicules beliefs are 1st century ignorance and fear at its worst. It is of the utmost importance for the health of civilization to eradicate the god virus. With information so easily available being ignorant today is by choice.
scotttebben 7 months ago
Martin Wagner sure likes listening to himself talking*g*.
I kinda had the impression the callers remark was slightly misinterpreted...
85blackboxx 8 months ago
Comment removed
85blackboxx 8 months ago
If someone believes that people deserve infinite punishment and torture, for finite crimes, do you respect that?
If someone thinks that homosexuals are worse than other people because they're homosexuals, do you respect that?
If someone thinks they are better than others because they believe something for which there is no evidence, do you respect that?
If someone thinks that people with other beliefs deserve to be tortured, do you respect that? No. So why is it ok if its part of a religiob?
vOddy75 1 year ago
Respect is EARNED not given. There's nothing in belief of an Invisible Man and a Talking Snake to respect.
lewisner 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Every charlatan or dupe that makes up or follows some random, cockamamie belief about anything doesn't deserve respect for those beliefs just because they believe it.
MicheasTheMighty2 1 year ago
Every charlatan or dupe that makes up or follows some random, cockamamie belief about anything doesn't deserve respect for those beliefs just because they believe it.
MicheasTheMighty2 1 year ago
I think respect is conditional. You need to show someone respect in order to get respect. The caller himself actually seemed deserving of it because he wasn't being a complete asshat about his question; he was acting respectful towards them, and in turn they acted respectful towards him.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
Respect IS conditional. That is quite true. I find that it is conditional upon whether the person I am communicating with has earned my respect. In the case of Christianity, the baseline assumptions are that I am born into this world with the burden of an ancestors sin upon me. That if I do not believe the same set religious beliefs, then the Just, loving god, whom they worship, will torture me for an eternity. That is my very idea of disrespect.Their only redemption, is to cease this belief.
skepticoz 1 year ago
"Respect is conditional, so long as you believe what I believe."
So it's basically the same drivel. I will respect you on the condition that you believe the same things I do, but when you disagree with me, all bets are off [and you deserve to be burned in hell].
Yes, respect is conditional. Tell that to your God who manipulates, blackmails and threatens us into accepting his "love"; obedience and worship. I do not respect such a God.
Thankfully there's no reason to believe he exists.
viridismonasteriense 1 year ago 3
Whenever you have a forum like this, the hosts are not going to be able to walk on eggshells and still have an effective and fruitful discussion. Someone IS going to be offended. When I check out clips by theists stating their opinions regarding my lack of belief in their god, I get a bit hot hearing the things they say--that I have no morality, that I'm stupid, deluded, a cancer on society, and deserving of both pity and ridicule. Respect? Maybe--but this is a door that swings both ways.
DandAinTac 1 year ago 2
I don't respect anything that contributes to the stunting of human growth, intellectual or otherwise.
RussianAssassin21 1 year ago 3
"If a person's beliefs are absolutely NOT open to change in the face of reasoned argument and evidence,THEY are the ones responsible for that. The rest of us are in no way obligated tiptoe around someone who's chosen to isolate their beliefs from criticism and react with hostility toward anyone who disagrees with them. It's plainly unreasonable to hold a permanently unchangeable belief that's preserved by sheer force of ignorance. We are not the ones at fault here." - Zinnia Jones
steveb0503 1 year ago 7
The Borg analogy ish't far off. When Christians get bit by the delusion bug, resistance trully does become futile
nosajj12345 1 year ago 5
I think its ridiculous that they expect others to respect their beliefs... if I claim that I have a pink unicorn in the trunk of my car, they would not (and should not) respect that belief not matter how sincerely I say "that's what I believe"... some beliefs are absurd and deserve to be laughed at.
MrShaftius 1 year ago
3:34 brother I can't believe what you believe because I know it is rubbish and if I respect your believes I would be a believer like you.
Dont expect me to respect your god your Jesus or the other guys flying spaghetti monster.
Evolvedprimate 1 year ago
If we as nonbelievers do not respect the beliefs of believers, we still must have tact, we must have couth and we must respect the individuals who deserve respect by the virtue of being an open, honest, and respectable people, where applicable. We must be patient.
Everybody is different. Everybody is an individual, even believers. We must treat people accordingly, on their individual merits.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a good piece of advice.
TempleOfSin 1 year ago
I only respect people's beliefs that make some kind of sense and don't hurt other people. Theism does not deserve the respect that people think it does. Especially considering the things it allows people to do in its name.
Belloran24 2 years ago 69
@Belloran24 You misunderstand Theism. Theism in its pure form, means believing in a personal God who interacts with His creatures. You don't have to be part of an organised religion to be Theist.
nowayout001 1 year ago
@nowayout001 it doesn't matter weather a person is involved with a religion or not. the idea that a person feels the need for their beliefs to be respected when there's no reasonable reason to be believing what they think is true is rediculous. i think what most people mean to say (or what they should be saying) is they wan't others to be courteous when addressing their beliefs. courtesy and respect are not one in the same. believing in the supernatural is not worthy of respect.
a10miletooth 11 months ago
@a10miletooth No, sweetie, I have to disagree. The religions don't want mere courtesy. They want respect. Abject bowing and scraping and honorifics. They demand that you give authority to their tenets and dogmas and they demand that you give THEM respect for believing these follies. It's not courtesy they demand. In return for this demanded respect, they will return either fake pity, thinly veiled arrogance or stifling condescension. Occasionally, outright contempt.
ciaochowbella 11 months ago
@ciaochowbella oh, believe me, i know that all too well. what i was saying is that they don't understand what should or shouldn't be respected just because an opposing view is offensive. i've never met a single religious person able to give a reason on why any religious belief should be respected, only that they believe they should be but never why. which is just mind numbing.
a10miletooth 10 months ago
@a10miletooth
The only answer I get is "my religion is sacred', but then when asked if they would make fun of other religions or sects, they do so willingly. I heard a report that a majority of UK muslims want free speech limited in regards to religion. The same thing happens w/ bill donahue from the catholic league anytime anyone insults his ideals. They never understand that free speech laws are designed to protect speech like that, unpopular speech. It's the whole bloody point!
sakar181 10 months ago
I'm an infidel, If I respect your god I will be one of you, so I have no respect for your believes or your god
Evolvedprimate 2 years ago
To be honest this is one of the best questions ive ever seen given to these guys. Well done Mr Christian Sir! =D
wiresinlove 2 years ago
This is why God gave us free will. The free will to bow down to his dictatorship or suffer for the rest of eternity.
redteamdarkspear 2 years ago 4
Ay, because he loves us.
Korkzor 2 years ago
@redteamdarkspear i'd prefer the latter
spiderwebb33 2 years ago
Is it me or this man has called before with different names?
alexander33345 2 years ago
Anyone seen the episode "I, Borg" with Hue? I think that really is a great look at the joruny to becoming an atheist. At first you're like "No, you're wrong! Only my way is correct!" But than you start seeing more and more of what they have, and so you start to learn from it, and than before you know it, you're one of them noticing all your former flaws, and all your old people's tricks.
Sorry about any misspellings.
SoraCross 3 years ago 3
And then you eventually rejoin the church, and become unhappy with the experiments the head of the church and his identical brother perform on the congregation...
thedoctor1812 2 years ago
Koryk1: "we are fallen angels, practically demonic"
But we're made "in His (God's) image", correct? I am Atheist, but for me, God and religion are separate questions. Still, I can't help but wonder why I should worship a God who made me in the image of a demonic fallen angel.
1. It shows he's not "Omni" anything.
2. He thinks I'm a sinner, but HE made me this way.
3. Would punish me for eternity for "said" sins (sins HE created).
This is the SHORT list of things wrong with this being.
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago 4
I mean, this whole "free will" thing is bunk anyway. Not just for the contradictory reason of God knowing the future, etc., but also because, Why punish someone for making a choice YOU gave them? Christians say that if God eliminated evil with his powers, that would take away our right to choose to do it - thereby destroying "free will".
If you built a sentient robot, and never programmed it to kill, it could still live a happy life with no knowledge of murder. However, if you specifically...
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago 6
just a question; how does knowing the future eliminate free will?
watty024 2 years ago
Basically, if one knows the future, then one already has definite knowledge of what is already going to happen. This eliminates the ability to change that happening. If that "happening" can be changed, then the "future knower" doesn't really know the future - he just knows a possible outcome - which is not the same. We all know possible outcomes. Knowing the future however requires definite knowledge, and if that knowledge is definite, it can't be changed.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
right. but knowing the future surely doesn't negate free will? if i give you the choice of life or death, and i know you are going to choose life, how have i impinged on your free will to choose?
the future can't be changed, but does that mean the choices that lead to it weren't free? i think knowledge of the future and dictating the future are different, no?
watty024 2 years ago
If you know, definitively (somehow), that I am going to choose life, then it was never a possibility for me to choose otherwise, so it wasn't a free choice. It was already and always predetermined.
However, if you "know" I am going to choose life because most everyone would choose life, that's not truly "knowing", that's just strong belief. In that case, it is a free choice.
WesMan200 2 years ago
this is, i think, where you are getting it wrong. how does my knowledge of what you chose limit your free will? You are the one who made the choice. i have not set any limits on your will, it is a free choice. because i happen to know what you chose means nothing with regards to your ability to choose. the fact that i know what you chose only means that i know what the outcome is, not that i have determined the future for you. the rest of your posts are u8nnecessary.
watty024 2 years ago
As for you, if your response to someone explaining their argument is to say it's "unnecessary", then actually, you're unecessary - as is the continuance of this exchange.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
i think it is dishonest of you to characterize my response this way. that was one sentence at the end of a logical argument, which i notice you didn't even attempt to refute, stating that your exposition was irrelevant to the argument. if you care to refute what i posted, i'm interested to read it. otherwise, i'll accept your lame reply as the concession of defeat it implies.
watty024 2 years ago
Defeat? I didn't realize it was a battle. I thought it was just an exchange of ideas.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
i didn't realise mirepresenting my position was an exchange of ideas.
knowledge of the future, and pre-determination are different things. the future is the result of free choices, and knowing what the results are does not limit the freedom that allowed the choice.
things could only have happened one way, or this is the observation of the things that happened.
you can't change the future because it hasn't happened yet, not because you observed it.
watty024 2 years ago
It's really simple, actually. It's not even about the outcome of the choice - if your God definitively knows the future, then he knows the very choice I will make - forget the outcome. If that is true about the God, then I could have made no other choice to begin with. The "Free will" I used to make the "choice" didn't exist.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
i still don't see the connection between knowing what you will choose, using your own free will, and determining the choice for you, or limiting your choice. your choice didn't happen in the future. the knowledge of the outcome did. for you, the future does not exist, therfore you are not bound to any knowledge this god has of your choice. you are free to choose, and the result of your choice is what this god knows. you have not been limited. btw i don't believe in gods.
watty024 2 years ago
'cept maybe clapton. lol
watty024 2 years ago
1. Clapton's pretty good. :)
2. Forgive me for the assumption about your beliefs - I usually only get your argument from Theists.
As for free will, I don't know how else to explain it. If you choose to eat a sandwich, and someone knew absolutely and definitively that you would eat that sandwich, then you could have chosen nothing else. had you chosen (or been able to choose) anything else, they would not have KNOWN the future - they would only be guessing at it.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
i think i could have chosen anything else. all that person knows is what i did choose. the thing they know is a result of my free choice. it does not say that i couldn't have chosen any other sandwich, only that i chose the one i chose.
what happened, happened. it happened as a reult of free will, regardless of who knew it would.
watty024 2 years ago
"all that person knows is what i did choose."
The word "did" is important here.
To know something after it has happened isn't knowledge of the future.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
but that's my point. for me, the event hasn't happened. therefore, i am not bound to it. i can choose whatever at will. only after i have made my choice does it become something to know. i am picturing existence as a long movie, where i can see all the choices people are going to make. but i'm not writing the script; they are. i am only seeing the choices they will make of their free will.
watty024 2 years ago
I understand. I am not saying you are writing the script - I am saying that just by knowing the script, their free will is eliminated. You didn't need to take any action - your knowledge was all that was necessary.
If they do anything other than what you read, then you didn't really know THE script, you knew A script. That is something a little bit different (that we can also go into).
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
but they are making their own choices. i agree that if they do anything different i didn't know the script. that says nothing about their free will, it says i didn't have knowledge of the future. if i give you a choice, A or B, and i Know you will choose A, it doesn't mean you could have only chosen A because your FW was eliminated, it means you chose A. you have to make the choice in the present for me to know what you will choose in the future, because the future doesn't exist for you.
watty024 2 years ago
The first part of your statement is exactly what I'm getting at. :)
If the characters in the movie exercise free will, and that wasn't written into the script you read, then, as you agreed, you didn't really know the script. That's all I'm getting at - if we have free will, then no one can definitively know what we will do in the future. Either we have free will and no one can tell the future, or someone CAN tell the future and we have NO free will. I believe the former.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
i'm saying the script was written by the free choices of the people. i believe we have free will, and no one can definitively know the future. this is all hyppothetical. but if someoone could know the future, which doesn't exist because we have not yet created it with our FW, what they would know is the result of the choices we made. the future does not dictate our past actions, it reflects them.
watty024 2 years ago
Aha! I thought this was happening - we're discussing two different things. I'm discussing what Theists mean when they discuss an Omniscient God. That is, that God knows the very choice itself, and so I argue that the choice is not born of free will because God has determined the choice by knowing it absolutely.
You're discussing the RESULT of the choice, and that is where our disconnect has lain. I suspected as much. OK, regarding my position on your point...
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
well, that is because the future doesn't exist, so to argue about someone having knowledge of something that doesn't exist, i tried to establish how a future could exist, and it would exist as a reflection of the FW choices we make.
i still don't see how their god knowing the choice they are going to make determines the choice. all He knows is the choice you are going to make. you could have chosen A or B, but He knows you will choose A, no?
watty024 2 years ago
Right - if he "knows" I will choose A, then in effect, I've already chosen it....
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
yeah
watty024 2 years ago
... In my view, what you describe is not one actually having knowledge of the future, it is of one having knowledge of the future POSSIBILITIES (forgive CAPS - no italics on YouTube).
For instance "I know that if a man jumps out of that window, he will fall 12 stories)" But it is up to him to jump out of that window. I presume that is your meaning.
In my view, that is not true knowledge, but rather belief based on education and observation, because he may indeed jump, but land on a balloon...
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
naw, i spoke to this in my post, i couldn't wait. i don't think the future exists. no worries on the caps, for emphasis, i get it.
watty024 2 years ago
.. which you wouldn't have known would happen. So you knew what COULD happen in a limited circumstance, but not what would ACTUALLY happen. I don't mean to discount education and observation - I was just making a point within this context. I believe education and observation are the way to go. (Education being what you learned in school, and observation being what you learned in your own experiences with gravity.)
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
that is right. and it follows that someone can not be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time :) if you know you can't change it, if you can change it, you can not know
brownbigb 2 years ago
It appears my first post didn't come through. I said:
1. I'll decide for myself what is necessary to make my point, thank you.
2. Forgive me for responding from my 2nd account. Didn't mean to cause any confusion.
Lastly, you didn't read my posts clearly, so maybe more were necessary after all. I never said the "future knower" creates limitations - he doesn't need to. The limitations are inherent. Just by having that knowledge, the "limitation" becomes extant with no additional work.
YourFriendlyAtheist 2 years ago
I'm not saying free will can't exist if God exists - I'm saying free will can't exist if that God had predetermined knowledge of the future. It would seem to US we made a free choice, but if that "God" being already knew definitively what we were going to do, then our perception of free will was just an illusion.
WesMan200 2 years ago
Regarding the future, the knowledge that we generally refer to is not actual empirical knowledge, but rather, "knowledge of possibility". For example:
We all "know" that if one falls from a skyscraper, he dies. That is common "knowledge". However, the *possibility* exists that one person may fall from the top window and live. And for that person, our common "knowledge" would have failed us. What we really "knew" was that death was a possibility - not an inevitability. The knowledge of the...
WesMan200 2 years ago
... the knowledge of the future that many imply a God would have is stated to be his (or her or its) *empirical* knowledge. If this knowledge is empirical, it can't be changed, so therefore free will would be illusory on our part.
WesMan200 2 years ago
Also, Free will is not just about choice, it's about causality as well.
WesMan200 2 years ago
... added a killing program to it and then it went out and killed someone, would you then be upset that it did what YOU programmed it to do? Before the program, it had free will (minus the ability to kill). After the program, it had free will (PLUS the ability to kill). The robot WITHOUT a killing program has no less free will than a human with no knowledge of hats. By Christian measure then, everything I DON'T have knowledge of (which is considerable) limits my free will. So what's one more?
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago 8
The eimination of "evil" would basically cause life to be no different - except for the lack of knowledge of "evil". When you have a child, you put a guard on the stairs so they don't fall. You don't give the child the option of falling down the stairs and then punish the child when he does so. Personally, I rather enjoy this version of the world, but if Christians want to prove God's existence, the elimination of all the existing pains of life might be a start - whatever those may be... :)
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago 5
Of course, those things are different for everyone, but then, if God is so perfect and "Omni-" everything, he can fix that, can't he? :)
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago 3
"Don't you see that Jesus' ways are the best way."
It would help if you Christians actually fixated on Jesus' teachings as opposed to cherry-picking from sections of the Bible and attempting to impose those areas. Especially nonsensical Old Testament rubbish.
Why is the Old Testament even part of your Bible? It predates Christ and is filled with some of the most horrific stories the likes of which would give Stephen King and Dean Koontz nightmares.
Diomedes01 3 years ago 7
Thank You!!! This is one of the major questions I keep asking (among the HUNDREDS of others). Jesus himself (if he lived and preached) often contradicts MUCH of the old testament - in his own "words"!
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago 6
But he also says to keep it around.
Ing213 3 years ago
Where does he say that? And in any case, it is still ridiculous. Maybe we should start a religion around Martin Luther King. He said and did great things too. He must be a God. People can worship him and commit all sorts of horrible acts in his name as well... I'd like to be here in 2000 years to see if that actually happens....
YourFriendlyAtheist 3 years ago
When religous say we should show them "respect" and complain that what we say about them "offends them", do they not consider that maybe I'm offended by the fact they think I'm going to hell for eternity and they're going to heaven?
ste00158 3 years ago 6
precisely, they disrespect disbelief...
what's sad is that the only difference between the two are morality source (self vs God)
chessdawgz 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The world timeline is based on Christ. Its not a religion, he just was sent by whatever, be it extra-terrestrials.
Simply to show humans the right way, to put aside these worldly desires. This life is short, and the blood and physical part of it is a testimony of how its not the be all/end all.
There is more to it afterward, believe me, for I have done the work of many thousands of men.
They don't see that their ways are wrong. Don't you see that Jesus' ways are the best way.
koryk1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Foolishness. They know not what they do.
Look at it through god's eyes, look at homosexuality, etc.
Look at humans through the eyes of a frightened animal, we are fallen angels, practically demonic, thats what made me see the truth.
koryk1 3 years ago
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs
BeforeTheNoose 3 years ago 140
lol
daddyleon 3 years ago 2
@BeforeTheNoose And in the case of YouTube they shouldn't hang around atheist message boards.
lewisner 1 year ago
@BeforeTheNoose And if you truly feel you're right, it shouldn't bother you to be laughed at.
If someone laughs at me for saying the earth is a sphere, I'm not going to get bothered. I'd feel bad they're so stupid, but I'm not going to be "offended."
Wolverazio 1 year ago
Another good one.
inthefade 3 years ago
Matt's got tons of patience. I could never tolerate such nonsense =)
Jacena 3 years ago 3
And what the guy on the phone doesnt realize is how we are all condition from society and basically everything else we encounter. Everything about you has to do with how you are brought up and what you come into contact with in your life. So really, its like you are a programmed robot, not matter how open minded with think we are.
1MinDLesS1 3 years ago 3
I guess you can view everyone as a walking sensor, but so what? It seems like an empty figure of speech to me.
clray123 3 years ago
may seem like that to you, but in all honesty, its going to seem like an illusion because we have free will. or atleast that is seems we have free will. i could be wrong, but you know. but think about it like this. You act based upon how the environment around you changes and works. This is going to cause you to act accroding to it. thats a really bad example and its vague lol. its hard to explain it haha im sure you understand though!
1MinDLesS1 3 years ago
Sure, you are basically pointing out determinism - the state of reality at instant t+1 is already determined at instant t (this rule applies recursively). Still, this model is useless because whether it is true or not, the consequences are the same. It reminds me of the idea of sollipsism (the outside world does not exist, it just seems to you that it does), which is also empty of consequences.
clray123 3 years ago
yeah, i should of just said that. i guess i was pointing out more of a hard determinism.
1MinDLesS1 3 years ago
No you are right people are biological robots. As for free will responses to stimuli are limited and as proof watch a show like candid camera. You will see people reacting to strange situations, in the same robotic fashion as if it was an everyday occurance. Thereby proving they are usually going on autopilot. I admit my own guilt. I like to think I am a thinker, but I catch my self autopiloting.
adolthitler 3 years ago
thanks for the backing! yeah though, i feel exactly the same as you about it!
1MinDLesS1 3 years ago
I liked it, dont know what I liked though :)
ZsSuperCumulo 3 years ago
that went nowhere
pod054321 3 years ago 5